On 1/04/25 12:23, Herb Weiner via Postfix-users wrote:
I am having problems comfiguring Postfix and Dovecot to communicate via
lmtp on Ubuntu.
The following is an excerpt of my Dovecot configuration:
protocols = imap lmtp
protocol lmtp {
postmaster_address = postmas...@wiskit.c
On 26/03/25 05:02, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
"Reputation lists may have additional policies and restrictions that you
need to follow when using them, you should not configure a list in
Postfix until you are fully aware of its requirements."
...or something like that.
Yeah. And as
On 25/03/25 07:43, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Too late! I have already updated the documentation (on www.porcupine.org;
mirrrors will pick it up in the next hour or so).
I'm guessing that you added this to postscreen_dnsbl_sites and
reject_rbl_client rbl_domain:
"NOTE: Always us
On 16/03/25 17:48, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
16.03.2025 07:26, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
You linked a debian bug, but I could not find a patch in there.
The patch was in the attachment in the same email:
https://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=174205748609705&w=2
I
On 16/03/25 17:13, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
16.03.2025 06:18, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
This is a relatively simple patch, for the sake of simplicity it
replaces the linefeed at read time, but a slightly more complicated
patch that does it when lines are output to dst
On 16/03/25 16:18, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
This is a relatively simple patch, for the sake of simplicity it
replaces the linefeed at read time, but a slightly more complicated
patch that does it when lines are output to dst might be more
appropriate. Note this is untested:
...and I
On 16/03/25 10:39, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
That said, it should not be difficult for Postfix code to always
strip line breaks on input and to always append line breaks on
output.
That is fundmentally how all message content is handeld everywhere,
regardless off whether the line b
On 8/03/25 04:04, Petko Manolov wrote:
Thanks for the detailed explanation, a few details are new to me.
I should make a couple of clarifications that became apparent to me
after I had sent the response. The headers you posted would have been
from the bounce message, you never received the
On the download page the first GPG key links to
http://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/official/postfix-3.10.0.tar.gz.gpg0
which is a 404.
Peter
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to po
On 4/02/25 09:53, Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users wrote:
* Josh Good via Postfix-users [31/01/2025 00:37] :
There were community-provided RPM packages of Postfix for Red Hat 6.2
(Classic), as noted in the original post for this thread, but none of
them seems to have survived on any publicly a
On 30/01/25 15:11, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 30/01/25 11:34, Josh Good via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello all.
Due to reasons which are best left untold, I am setting up a Red Hat 6.2
(classic edition) machine.
This system comes with Sendmail 8.9.3, and it mainly works just fine.
However
On 30/01/25 11:34, Josh Good via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello all.
Due to reasons which are best left untold, I am setting up a Red Hat 6.2
(classic edition) machine.
This system comes with Sendmail 8.9.3, and it mainly works just fine.
However, I was looking for some old Postfix RPM package sui
On 30/01/25 12:00, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
If you can get them to address the root cause problem: failing
syscalls without proper logging why) then people could fix these
problem themselves (as the saying goes, "teach a human to fish").
Except for the very rare case of dontaudit
On 29/01/25 12:56, E R via Postfix-users wrote:
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Even if I disagreed, it would not be one
of the rare Postfix bugs. 8-) As I wrote in another post, I do think
it might be helpful to mention the downside of not using the default
of syslog as I did.
While I don't have
On 23/01/25 15:34, Christian Seberino via Postfix-users wrote:
Is there a "minimal" setting for these two variables that will
give *some* protection without blocking friendly sites by accident?
I don't know exactly what you mean by "minimal" here, but this is what I
use:
postscreen_dnsbl_sit
On 14/01/25 12:31, Scott K via Postfix-users wrote:
Yes, Dovecot should be listening on port 587 if using "submission"
service
Dovecot submission is just a proxy, it still has to pass the submitted
message to postfix so there is little reason to use dovecot submission
unless you need BURL sup
Your smtp (25) and submission (587) ports are serving a different
certificate, port 25 is serving the letsencrypt cert, but port 587 is
serving a self-signed certificate (which is what thunderbird is seeing):
depth=0 CN = mail.servicemouse.com
verify error:num=18:self signed certificate
On 22/12/24 23:22, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
Cyrus SASL is a separate thing in people minds because it is a
separate, independent library/subsystem. You can install a separate
package named this way. But in Dovecot it is an integral part of a
larger system, it is not viewed like
On 22/12/24 19:53, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
22.12.2024 03:39, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 22/12/24 02:54, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
However, there are other mechanisms being developed, for example OAUTH2,
which, in terms of Cyrus SASL, does not work with
On 22/12/24 03:19, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
What's worth mentioning is that PLAIN/LOGIN also requires cleartext
password storage - on the client side.
This is not entirely true. It is possible for a client to store
passwords in an encrypted db which is decrypted with its own pass
On 22/12/24 02:54, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
However, there are other mechanisms being developed, for example OAUTH2,
which, in terms of Cyrus SASL, does not work with saslauthd at all,
I don't see why it wouldn't.
so
needs direct integration within postfix in a form of plugin
On 21/12/24 12:37, E R via Postfix-users wrote:
Curious if there are others using the maillog_file setting who have
found that "out of the box" RHEL 8+ or 9+ will not allow Postfix to
start? I worked around the issue by creating a policy module for
testing purposes thanks to the help the SELInux
On 15/12/24 23:34, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-12-15 09:44, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
With systemd logging, logs are by default lossy (rate-limits too tight
and many users don't notice until it is too late). Also logging is
System-wide "defaults to 1 messa
On 15/12/24 03:32, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
By design, all Postfix programs can fail, and therefore must retry.
If the cleanup daemon fails, the pickup daemon must retry. Likewise,
if a delivery agent or bounce daemon fails, the queue manager must
retry. Also, queue files may be mov
On 15/11/24 10:02, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users:
On 11/14/24 4:12 AM, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
I have been notified about datacenter maintenance which will disrupt
access to www.postfix.org. Maintenance is planned for 2024-11-27 between
On 7/11/24 09:48, Hua Young via Postfix-users wrote:
Nope. smtps (port 465) and submissions (port 587) are two separated
services defined in master.cf. Their use will not affect each other.
"smtps" is the old name for "submissions" and both refer to 465.
"submission" (without the "s" on the en
On 2/11/24 09:58, giuliano--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi everyone!
Thank you a lot Wietse your help was essential for me learn more about
the dovecot and postfix and resolve the problem. I dont know why, but
the dovecot.conf was not loading the conf.d/ folder. So after change
these files I d
On 30/10/24 17:18, Adriel via Postfix-users wrote:
If users are added in main MX, how can they be synchronized to backup MX
for relay access?
That's up to you to keep them in sync, perhaps with a master/slave
replicated database, or simply using rsync and a cron job on the
appropriate db file
On 30/10/24 00:36, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
You haven't posted the usual output of:
$ postconf -nf
or (because Postfix 2.5.5 predates "postconf -Mf"), the verbatim content
of the non-comment lines of "master.cf". Nor any logs showing the
purported problem address being rej
On 29/10/24 05:52, Ken Gillett via Postfix-users wrote:
>>> mail_version = 2.5.5
>>
>> That's certainly not recent. :-(
The server versions of Postfix are from 2018, whereas the std. install
is 2020.
You're off by a decade, 2.5.5 was released in 2008 and the final 2.5
release was in February
On 28/10/24 22:43, Wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
He had requested to the provider but got no luck. they rejected his
requests. :)
As a solution I may consider open another port for him rather than the
default 465/587 for submissions.
Unreasonable, imo that they won't open the ports, but allo
On 28/10/24 20:07, Peter Ajamian via Postfix-users wrote:
On 28/10/24 20:02, Wesley wrote:
That VM provider Crunchbits blocks all traffic to external ports of
25, 587, 465, 2525 etc. under this case how the customer can access my
mailserver via SMTP for submissions?
Postfix can listen on lite
On 28/10/24 15:37, Wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
Do you know any project which provides HTTP api integrated with postfix
for sending email ? I ask this is because one of my customers has been
using the VPS which has all outgoing smtp ports/traffic blocked.
You really shouldn't be using the s
On 25/10/24 22:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
That will work poorly with SSL. The reason to have a Postgres database,
as opposed to something simple like "cdb" tables, is to share data
across multiple hosts, so I'm sceptical that "127.0.0.1" is the norm for
using Postfix with a Pos
On 23/10/24 08:56, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Spaces are not allowed in submission -o override settings.
How do you handle adding a service? Or is it not possible? Can you \ the
space?
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=check_policy_service\
unix:private/myservice
You can set a vari
On 7/10/24 20:35, Eray Aslan via Postfix-users wrote:
The maintainer of the Debian (and by descent, Ubuntu) Postfix package
long ago decided to take advantage of Postfix's support for chroot by
enabling it on more components of Postfix than the defaults. That
Yes, and it is difficult to change
On 5/10/24 00:46, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Aleksandr Stankevi? via Postfix-users:
Hi postfix-users!
We've recently encountered an issue where postfix lookup does not find an
entry in the hash table while postmap is running. Here?s some logs for a
few emails for u...@example.com b
On 30/09/24 18:54, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
>This looks like a port 25 block to me. Check with your host to make
sure they are not blocking outbound port 25, many of them require a
request to open the port.
I had to ask my ISP 4 or 5 times.
They kept insisting that they did
On 30/09/24 10:38, Steve Matzura via Postfix-users wrote:
2024-09-29T21:31:27.402601+00:00 tgv24 postfix/error[1775]: B9E5510584F:
to=, orig_to=, relay=none,
delay=48744, delays=48594/150/0/0.01, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred
(delivery temporarily suspended: connect to
fb.mail.gandi.net[217.70.17
On 21/09/24 17:16, Wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
# postconf -d message_size_limit
message_size_limit = 1024
as you see above, message_size_limit defauts to 10MB?
that would be too limited in my case.
It is very limiting, and to be honest I have increased it on my postfix
as well, but do
On 21/09/24 11:26, Wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
dear list,
I see both postfix and dovecot can set the limit for mailbox size and
message size.
So which to set it as the better way? or both?
It depends on the delivery agent:
* For the postfix local(8) lda you would use mailbox_size_limit.
On 19/09/24 21:10, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
wrote:
Anonymous TLS connection established from X: TLSv1.3 with cipher
TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
(128/128 bits) key-exchange x25519_kyber768 server-signature E
On 7/09/24 22:23, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
I see, thanks. Assuming for a moment that resources for the SA checks
weren't an issue,
Resources are always an issue, you may think you don't get that much
mail but spam can come in heavy waves and postscreen can do a good job
of blocking i
On 7/09/24 19:25, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
I notice Spamhaus say that for smaller hosts, RBL blocking at smtp level
is not recommended, and instead it’s better to use a milter for RBL
checking.
https://docs.spamhaus.com/datasets/docs/source/40-real-world-usage/PublicMirrors/MTAs/030-S
On 5/08/24 07:38, Alex via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 2:31 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org>> wrote:
Dnia 4.08.2024 o godz. 20:14:34 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
> My best advice when forwarding to gmail is t
On 5/08/24 08:02, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 4.08.2024 o godz. 15:38:58 Alex via Postfix-users pisze:
Buit this has one HUGE disadvantage, that is so obvious that I always
wonder
how people who advise to do this can not mention it?
Scalability? Load on local server? That POP
On 4/08/24 11:04, Alex via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi,
I'm using postfix-3.8.5 on fedora40 and having a problem with forwarding
mail from our relay to gmail recipients. We have some users using
~/.forward files to individual gmail accounts. Obviously not ideal, but
I hoped openarc could help alle
On 30/07/24 22:18, Linkcheck via Postfix-users wrote:
I am recently seeing an almost exact similarity between mail.log and
mail.info, to the extent I am now querying the usefulness of looking at
mail.info at all. Am I missing something?
This is a Debian thing, you can safely ignore mail.info a
On 30/07/24 15:29, Phil Steel-Wilson via Postfix-users wrote:
I was subscribed fro many years under p...@philfixit.info but now i want
to use p...@philfixit.com.au which i dutifully entered into the form at
https://list.sys4.de/postorius/lists/postfix-users.postfix.org/
however i dont get a me
On 28/07/24 17:58, Walt E via Postfix-users wrote:
Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account for this
domain?
I asked this is b/c one of our domains has millions of users, and a people
registered the postmaster account (surely it's due to our mistake in work) with
th
On 20/07/24 00:30, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Just to throw another wrench in the works, MariaDB lists mysql_options()
as deprecated in MariaDB Connector/C 3.0 and recommends mysql_optionsv()
instead:
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mysql_options/
For now it should work, but we may end up
On 19/07/24 11:59, Robert Fuhrer via Postfix-users wrote:
Where does that number come from? It needs to be a version that
introduces all the the MYSQL_OPT_SSL_XXX features that Postfix
needs. This is the preferred API, and it won't be removed in another
10 years.
The format of MYSQL_VERSION_ID
On 13/07/24 16:54, Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users wrote:
Thanks a lot for your feedback. I learned a lot. So I’ll forget the
whole thing.
I have a last question, though: are there disadvantages of using a
catchall compared to not using it, just letting messages bounce when t
On 29/06/24 18:09, Curtis J Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
I don't know how many times now I have said this but I will day it again.
I have postfix set up to only listen on/use 127.0.0.1 *not* ::1.
What postfix listens on is irrelevant, this has to do with which IP
postfix connects to spamp
On 29/06/24 15:16, Curtis J Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter, my misunderstanding, sorry. This is what I discovered today in
my testing. I explicitly used 127.0.0.1 and not localhost or so I
thought, I explain that below.
Back on topic. I did some more testing. This was the spampd options
On 29/06/24 05:59, Curtis J Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
Always in a good mood. It's a waste not to be. When I'm focused on
something I just state the facts as I understand them and sometimes that
doesn't come across well.
Yeah I know localhost can be either that's why I used 127.0.0.1 in th
On 29/06/24 03:17, Curtis J Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
Well Peter all the "mynetworks =" that I have defined explicitly state
127.0.0.1 not localhost and all the logging shows 127.0.0.1 not
localhost. So that is why I say I am using 127.0.0.1. So I cannot follow
Ralph's suggestion changing
On 28/06/24 19:01, Curtis J Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
What I am looking for is pretty simple. How to get it to work with
"inet_protocols = all" like my existing server is currently set up to do
and not be limited to ipv4 only.
And it is already set to use 127.0.0.1
No it is not, it is s
On 21/06/24 23:10, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-21 08:45:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
mail to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope
On 21/06/24 21:49, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 21.06.2024 o godz. 18:45:15 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
mail to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
Th
On 20/06/24 17:47, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
So many replies!
@Ralph
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any
way, rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an
automatic
On 20/06/24 04:35, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
It appears that Peter via Postfix-users said:
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is no part of the
email specification that allows a message to be marked as unable to be
replied to. Many
On 18/06/24 14:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
If I used $config['smtp_host']
= ‘tls;//www.stovebolt.com'; or I used $config['smtp_host'] =
’ssl;//www.stovebolt.com'; roundcube would error out saying it couldn’t
connect to the server.
It's "tls://..." or "ssl://" with a colon (:) not
On 18/06/24 13:00, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-06-18 07:30, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 17/06/2024 17:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
How do you set up roundcube to not use authentication? I really
don’t need it since it’s on the same machine as the mail server.
What config
On 17/06/2024 17:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
How do you set up roundcube to not use authentication? I really don’t
need it since it’s on the same machine as the mail server. What config
options do I need to use?
To be honest, you still likely want authentication. Keep in mind that
you don't need
On 17/06/24 17:16, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
Without seeing logs and actual config settings I can only guess. One
thing to keep in mind is that there's two types of TLS connection,
implicit TLS and explicit TLS. Implicit TLS connects to a port
dedicated to TLS connections
On 17/06/24 16:49, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
Gmail rejects it, but I’ve altered my spf record to include localhost. I hope
once that propagates my problems with be solved.
This will not do anythi9ng for you, you cannot put localhost in an SPF
record.
There are many reasons why g
On 17/06/24 16:49, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
On Jun 16, 2024, at 10:30 PM, Peter via Postfix-users
wrote:
It's likely that roundcube is not configured for TLS and postfix is (as it
should be) configured not to offer AUTH until TLS is established.
Yes, postfix is configur
On 17/06/24 13:54, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
I’m seeing this error in the roundcube logs:
[16-Jun-2024 20:28:58 -0500]: SMTP Error: Authentication
failure: mail.stovebolt.com
PIPELINING
SIZE 9
VRFY
ETRN
STARTTLS
ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
8BITMIME
DSN
SMTPUTF8
CHUNKING (Code: 250
On 5/06/24 19:23, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 5/06/24 16:20, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
Original text:
Is there a link to the announcement online?
I see it's from the mailop list which, unfortunately has the archives
set private so it doesn't help me to be ab
On 5/06/24 16:20, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
Original text:
Is there a link to the announcement online?
Peter
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On 26/05/24 09:58, Mike via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
My setup like below:
I have Postfix setup and use dovecot as SASL. Now, all email accounts
can use the smtp server to send emails. I want to allow only one email
account to send out emails and rest of others can only use POP3 or IMAP.
On 25/05/24 01:37, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
He mentioned that on postfix with "smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes" (the
default) authentication is only available when TLS is active
The default is no, but it is very common to have it set to yes.
Peter
__
On 25/05/24 09:50, Northwind via Postfix-users wrote:
just to clarify, submissions is not required to set for enabling
sasl_auth on port 465/587. i have tested it, no need to set a separated
submissions.
Incorrect. submission is *only* port 587, submissions is port 465.
my postfix version
On 25/05/24 01:12, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Stephan Seitz via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-24 15:01:
Carefull, if you have „smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes” (I think), then
you’ll see AUTH after STARTTLS…
port 25 must not be tls only
Since authentication should never be done on
On 25/05/24 00:43, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Northwind via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-24 14:37:
and restarted postfix.
now I think it should be working.
telnet localhost 25
ehlo localhost
if you see AUTH in ehlo results it not done yet
no AUTH results take another beer :)
On 25/05/24 00:29, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Northwind via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-24 14:17:
so, in main.cf:
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=no
comment this out in main.cf, it already default no
It's fine to have it, it's simply redundant.
Peter
___
On 25/05/24 00:17, Northwind via Postfix-users wrote:
so, in main.cf:
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=no
Yes, although the setting is redundant here since it defaults to no
anyways it's fine to explicitly state it if you want.
then in master.cf:
submission inet n - y - -
On 24/05/24 21:32, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24.05.24 12:00, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
And the OP is referring to SASL AUTH attacks which are for submission,
not MX connections.
But some of those log lines mention postfix/smtpd, which means they
happen on port
On 24/05/24 13:08, Northwind via Postfix-users wrote:
do you mean since I have been using postscreen, there is no need to
manually disable authentication on port 25? since postscreen doesn't
have auth support.
No you definately should disable auth on port 25 regardless. It is
possible for po
On 24/05/24 01:42, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
Likely brute force.
Not exactly.
"Brute force" password cracking is almost never seen today, as it has
been replaced by a practice commonly called "credential stuffing" where
the attacker has some large collection of known-good username+p
On 24/05/24 02:12, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
Zen includes the "PBL" component, which consists largely of
residential and mobile consumer IPs.
Yes, but these are (usually) not considered valid clients, these should
use submission/submissions(smtps) ports where reject_rbl_c
On 23/05/24 19:02, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
In addition I can add one idea:
I have had quite a success with a policy server that rejects all connections
on submission ports IF it doesn't find a currently established IMAP session
from the same IP address. All "normal" mail clients (a
On 23/05/24 16:51, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
Dovecot has its own mechanism list, while Postfix has a mechanism list
filter. You should be able to set:
smtp_sasl_mechanism_filter = plain
He's trying to prevent login on smtpd, so the setting should be
smtpd_sasl_mechanism_f
On 23/05/24 10:55, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
2. How to strengthen email system security to stop this?
Don't accept mail from home networks. For example, use "reject_dbl_client
zen.spamhaus.org". For this you must use your own DNS resolver,
not the DNSresolver from your ISP.
He's
On 23/05/24 10:33, Northwind via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello list,
In the last two days, my mail system (small size) met attacks.
mail.log shows a lot of this stuff:
May 23 06:24:29 mx postfix/smtpd[2655149]: warning:
unknown[194.169.175.17]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6
May
On 16/05/24 23:40, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 16.05.2024 o godz. 12:05:52 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
On my side the email is accepted from here, and relayed, Rspamd
does sign it, and Postfix's last message in the log is a message
sent delivered, and removed from my que
On 16/05/24 11:54, David Mehler via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is a Postfix or an Rspamd problem or a Gmail
problem, the first two I can do something about the third one not so sure.
I'm running a personal E-mail server running on a VPS via a2hosting. I'm
using Cloudfla
Greetings,
I've been running an ipv4-only postfix system for years, and have dialed
in a set of SMTP access/relay controls that work well for my use case.
I've avoided enabling ipv6 because its lack had yet to cause an issue,
and due to what I'm given to understand has been the wild-west natu
On 25/04/24 19:42, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-04-25 09:19:
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed);
dmarc=pass
On 25/04/24 14:34, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote:
+1, thanks for dovecot maillist do it right, postfix maillist fails on spf
You make a confusing, factually incomplete post with claims that are
incorrect and then complain about a lack of clear response on a
different list? If you're going
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=pass
(Used From Domain Record) header.from=porcupine.org policy.dmarc=none
What does this have to to with Postfix, or
On 21/02/24 12:40, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users:
A quick status update.
First, several features have been logging warnings that they would
be removed for 10 years or more, so we could delete them in good
conscience (perhaps keeping the warning with the
On 19/02/24 14:00, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Over 25 years, Postfix has accumulated some features that
are essentially obsolete.
A quick status update.
First, sev
On 12/02/24 11:47, Alex via Postfix-users wrote:
My concern would be with multiple MX records for the same domain - is it
possible it would come back to try again with another MX and be delayed
yet again?
Unless you're referring to your own MX records these are not relevant.
That said, many p
On 11/02/24 13:51, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
If I am understanding correctly, that means that if I set smtp_skip_5xx_greeting to
"no", then postfix would stop after the first 5xx and terminate the email.
That seems like it might open up some issues where a provider with multiple MTA
On 10/02/24 02:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 08.02.24 13:05, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
I implemented postscreen quite a while ago. I don't see where or how
it introduces a delay to force the originating MTA to queue and try
later.
It does not introduce _t
On 8/02/24 21:38, Kees van Vloten via Postfix-users wrote:
A little addition that also helps a bit: move the content of the From:
header to the Reply-To: header and replace From: with the local account
that is forwarding the message. All mail then originates from your
domain and a reply to a fo
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
