Re: reject_unknown_sender_domain and DNS SERVFAIL result

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 16:00 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > lazarus:~# dig dfleur.com mx > > ; <<>> DiG 9.9.1-P3 <<>> dfleur.com mx > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 41183 ... > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) > ;; WHEN: Wed Oct 3 15:07:35 2012 Your locally

Re: Documentation Bug

On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 17:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > ... depending on the attachment the overhead can be very different Base64 always encodes 3 original bytes into 4 base64-bytes, so the factor to calculate the effective size for an attachment in an email is always 4/3*original_size. Of co

temporarily putting ON HOLD

Hi, I have a postfix configuration with virtual aliases like this: u...@example.com u...@imap.server, u...@relay.other.server There are transport maps like this: imap.server lmtp:unix:/var/imap/socket/lmtp relay.other.serversmtp:[ip.address.of.other.server] With this I

Re: Blocklist with multiple SELECT-fields

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:16 +0100, Jørn Skjerven wrote: > I have tried the following query: > > query = SELECT action,text FROM blocked_accounts WHERE address = '%s' Try query = SELECT concat(action,' ',text) FROM blocked_accounts ... (don't know the correct Syntax in MySQL to concatenate str

Re: how to specify a "default key" in access(5)

On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 23:44 +0100, mouss wrote: > Stefan Palme a écrit : > >> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients > >> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default > >> > >> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes > >

Re: content_filter .vs. transport_maps

On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms > in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc. Ok, but if I have a very simple setup without any per-whatever transport_maps, relayhost, etc. it

content_filter .vs. transport_maps

Hi, Is the effect of content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025 the same as transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transports /etc/postfix/transports: *smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025 ? Thanks and regards -stefan-

Re: how to specify a "default key" in access(5)

> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients > check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default > > // REJECT rejected for testing purposes Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default" must also be stored in LDAP (because some admin with LDAP access privilege

how to specify a "default key" in access(5)

Hi, I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution. I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this: ..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit with /etc/postfix/recipients: us...@example.com REJECT don't use this! us...@example.net DEFER s

Re: skipping single restrictions

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:26 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Stefan Palme: > > ... > > For testing purposes, I want to skip the policy service for some > > recipient addresses, for other recipients I want to skip the spamhaus > > check, and for a third class of recipients

skipping single restrictions

Hi all, I have smtpd_recipient_restrictions like this: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ... permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service unix:private/postgrey, reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, perm

Re: avoid aliasing

> My procmail delivers to mysql users just fine. The initial setup takes > some extra steps, but that's all. Ok, maybe I will take a look at this solution, too :-) Thanks and regards -stefan-

Re: avoid aliasing

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 06:59 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > On 27-Aug-2009, at 00:16, Stefan Palme wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 18:12 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > >> On 26-Aug-2009, at 03:14, Stefan Palme wrote: > >>> user+noduplicate: user+noduplicate > &

Re: avoid aliasing

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 18:12 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > On 26-Aug-2009, at 03:14, Stefan Palme wrote: > > user+noduplicate: user+noduplicate > > user: user, otheru...@otherdomain.com > > Seems to me this would be an ideal use of procmail. Thanks for the tip, but

avoid aliasing

Hi list, I have a (probably simple) alias configuration problem, but currently have no idea how to solve it. Have a postfix server which has "mydestination=example.com". There is a valid email address u...@example.com For certain reasons I wanto to duplicate mails sent to u...@example.com to an

Re: postscreen logging question

On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 16:43 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > I'm trying out postscreen. No unexpected explosions so far. > ... May I ask what exactly "postscreen" is? I've never heard about it and can not find any references in the web... Thanks and regards -stefan-

Re: logging stuff: NOQUEUE

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:41 -0500, Noel Jones wrote: > A QUEUEID is created when the number of accepted recipients > for a message is greater than zero. > > In the case of a multi-recipient message where some recipients > are accepted and some rejected, recipients before the first > accepted re

logging stuff: NOQUEUE

Hi all, I am currently working on a new logfile analyzer for postfix. Regarding this I will probably have some questions. Here the first one: When an incoming mail is rejected because of one of the rules defined by smtpd_{sender,recipient,data,helo}_restrictions, this rejection is logged with que

Re: howto HOLD all mails for a specific user?

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 09:47 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote: > The only solution I can think of that isn't overcomplicated would be to > clone the virtual or local transport in master.cf (depends on the address > class of the domain) and use the transport table to redirect the final > address to that tran

howto HOLD all mails for a specific user?

Hi all, As far as I have understood, check_recipient_access in smtpd_recipient_restrictions uses the original RCPT TO addresses for lookup (and not on the results after resolving (virtual) aliases). I want all mails received for a certain user to put on HOLD for a while (because I am repairing h

Re: order of local_recipient_maps, smtpd_recipient_restrictions

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 13:54 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote: > On Thu, June 11, 2009 1:03 pm, Stefan Palme said: > > > local_recipient_maps .vs. smtpd_recipient_restrictions - can > > anybody tell me which test happens first on incoming emails? > > You're comparing apples

order of local_recipient_maps, smtpd_recipient_restrictions

Hi all, local_recipient_maps .vs. smtpd_recipient_restrictions - can anybody tell me which test happens first on incoming emails? Thanks and regards -stefan-

Re: strange mail protocol

> > I am confused about the line "451 Message temporarily deferred" > > immediately followed by "status=sent (250 ok)". > > 4xx are temporary Errors and Postfix tries the next MX. > > 68.142.202.247 != 98.137.54.237 Args, obviously you are right. Sorry for the noise... Thanks -stefan-

strange mail protocol

Hi, I've just found the following in my postfix log: > grep C5E7710205CD: /var/log/mail/current May 29 13:21:01 [postfix/pickup] C5E7710205CD: uid=65534 from= May 29 13:21:01 [postfix/cleanup] C5E7710205CD: message-id=<20090529112101.11351.11039.stra...@strato1> May 29 13:21:01 [postfix/qmgr]

Re: per-user recipient_restrictions?

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:22 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Stefan Palme: > > Hi all, > > > > I have something like this in my main.cf: > > > > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = > > reject_non_fqdn_sender, > > reject_non_fqdn_re

per-user recipient_restrictions?

Hi all, I have something like this in my main.cf: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain, permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,

RE: [SPAM?] Re: First Time Configuration assistance

> With an ever changing list of over 600 e-mail addresses, manually > maintaining relay_recepient_maps doesn't strike me as appealing, or > practical. > > Unsurprisingly we have an AD back-end, is there any way for the two to > communicate? I see this as being the only practical way to check valid

Re: bounce processing

On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 06:52 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Stefan Palme: > > Hi all, > > > > Our mail server is configured to use special envelope sender addresses > > for some outgoing mail so that bounces can be processed automatically. > > > > The "

bounce processing

Hi all, Our mail server is configured to use special envelope sender addresses for some outgoing mail so that bounces can be processed automatically. The "bounce processor" is a self-made script. Are there any hints what to look for in a bounced mail to be sure, that it really is a bounce caused

when will smtpd_milters be applied

Hi all, will an incoming message be sent through the specified smtpd_milters BEFORE or AFTER smtpd_recipient_restrictions tests are be applied? I did not found any hint regarding this in the docs. Thanks -stefan-

Re: Creating a dummy filter

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 09:39 -1000, Camron W. Fox wrote: > Noel Jones wrote: > > Camron W. Fox wrote: > >> Alle, > >> > >> We would like to filter all internal email so that it bypasses > >> SpamAssassin. We have set up per_client_filters using: > >> > >> smtpd_client_restrictions = > >> ch

envelope recipient in mail headers?

Hi all, Today seems to be postfix day, so sorry for the bulk of questions ;-) When I receive a mail with only ONE envelope recipient, postfix inserts a mail header of the form Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F335A4A4084 for

Re: envelope recipient in mail headers?

mail.example.com for [EMAIL PROTECTED] -stefan- On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 12:58 +0200, Stefan Palme wrote: > > > Is there a way to enforce postfix to always insert a "from ..." part > > > on its Received: header? > > Of course I meant "for..." part... > &

Re: envelope recipient in mail headers?

> > Is there a way to enforce postfix to always insert a "from ..." part > > on its Received: header? Of course I meant "for..." part... > No, that would violate the privacy of BCC recipients. Why? The normal recipient (e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]) would get a mail with Received: from ... by ma

Re: append_at_myorigin for envelope addresses?

> But what makes postfix accept the non-fully-qualified envelope > sender and recipient addresses? I don't want to allow this, > I want to enforce "MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" etc... Ah sorry, found the problem in my smtpd_recipient_restrictions: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynet

append_at_myorigin for envelope addresses?

Hi, the following SMTP sessions works: -- > telnet localhost 25 ... EHLO localhost ... MAIL FROM: root 250 2.1.0 Ok RCPT TO: root 250 2.1.5 Ok DATA 354 End data with . To: root From: root Subject: test . 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 1FE944A4078 ---

caching information about bouncing receipients?

Hi, is there a builtin way to make postfix remember bouncing recipient addresses, so that further attempts to send mails to those addresses can be rejected? I do NOT want to use active recipient address verification. I only want to save when a real mail delivery attempt fails - so this seems to b

rbl / rhsbl services?

Hi again, where do I get information about current well known services to be used for reject_rbl_client reject_rhsbl_sender reject_rhsbl_recipient Thanks and regards -stefan-

where to send auto-replies?

Hi all, I've reconfigured our website email system, so auto-generated emails now have a valid From: and Reply-To: header ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and use an alternate envelope-FROM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Now I have seen a lot of auto-reply mails (aka "I am on holidays and back in september"). These mail

Re: Erronous Legal bounces... query

> At one of our domains we get a lot of SPAM, thats relatively easily > handled with all the filters and software > available today, but one thing we are plagued with is bounces from spam > sent to other domains using our > domains users as faked senders... these will not be caught in our spam >

canonical_classes per sender?

Hi, I want to apply canonical_maps to different canonical_classes, depending on the sender. E.g. I have the following sender_canonical_maps file: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want the first rule be applied only to the envelope_sender, w

Re: bounce delivery report

> > Is it possible to modify the format of this delivery report, > > e.g. adding a line to it? > > Great, thanks! -stefan-

bounce delivery report

Hi all, when postfix creates a bounce message, a "Delivery report" will be attached describing the problem. Is it possible to modify the format of this delivery report, e.g. adding a line to it? Regards -stefan-

Re: [OT] Using [EMAIL PROTECTED] [was: best way for website sending emails]

Hi Robert, > there is nothing you can do against people > writing/reply mails to adresses what ever, so i think > this problem is not really total solvable by > tec stuff , also there is less what you can do about > what people think about your reputation, so you better dont care It's not MY repu

Re: [OT] Using [EMAIL PROTECTED] [was: best way for website sending emails]

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 10:51 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote: > Jeff schrieb: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tony Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will

Re: best way for website sending emails

> Instead of adding an ever-increasing list of features to Postfix > (or throwing in a Turing-complete scripting language) I decided > around 2000 to allow people to plug stuff into Postfix: content > filters, policy daemons, and Milter applications. This is absolutely ok - I've just asked to be

Re: best way for website sending emails

Thanks for all your answers. My first approach to just throw away all bounces caused by senseless data entered into a web form is obviously too naive ;-) I guess I will go the way to collect bounces by a script and establish an smtpd_recipient_restrictions based on this list of bouncing addresses.

Re: best way for website sending emails

> > I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will > > read those emails. > > That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to > many RBLs. > > You want to look at and process al

Re: best way for website sending emails

Hi, > > It happens very very often that users enter an invalid email > > address or just senseless texts. So the webmaster-address > > receives all the backscatter from undeliverable mail. > > This is not backscatter. this is a legitimate bounce. Ok, sorry, I've used the wrong term - I'm talking

best way for website sending emails

Hello, a little bit off topic - but maybe someone can comment this... We are running a website where users can register themself, use features like "send this page to a friend" etc. Those features make the web application send an email to a user. The from addresses (envelope FROM and header From:

Re: bounces to reply-to or return-path?

> > this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server > > is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an > > undeliverable mail - which address will this bounce be sent to? > > > > The Return-Path? The address from the "From" header? > > Or even to the "Reply-To" a

bounces to reply-to or return-path?

Hi all, this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an undeliverable mail - which address will this bounce be sent to? The Return-Path? The address from the "From" header? Or even to the "Reply-To" address? Thank