Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4yjls01jvbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> For the first time ever i today get quite some of
|>
|> Jan 28 22:55:48 ouwa/smtpd[14615]: connect from unknown[unknown]
|> Jan 28 22:55:48 ouwa/
Hello.
For the first time ever i today get quite some of
Jan 28 22:55:48 ouwa/smtpd[14615]: connect from unknown[unknown]
Jan 28 22:55:48 ouwa/smtpd[14615]: lost connection after CONNECT from
unknown[unknown]
Jan 28 22:55:48 ouwa/smtpd[14615]: disconnect from unknown[unknown]
commands=0/0
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4yzbyp1lr9zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
...
|> i again stumbled over the fact that postfix receives many
|> successive mails from these servers, then creates / refreshes the
|> verify_sender DB, bu
Hello.
Full picture: i am still at the 9fans mailing-list, which over
time has been migrated to topicbox.com, and this is handled via
messagingengine.com (it is saddening to do configuration via
policy server as the two domains are distinct, sigh).
Well, there started a lot of noise on these list
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4yykn31zfkzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Tobi via Postfix-users:
...
|> we have an issue with mail delivery. We use tlspol to tell postfix if
|> mta-sts or DANE should be used for a recipient domain. Now we have the
...
|That would be unexpected. I'm i
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250102200053.OMpeoSDb@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
| <4ypcfw1rmdzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
||Joachim Lindenberg:
| ...
||Joachim Lindenberg:
||> To some extend the approach probably replaces blocking calls on
||> TCP layer with
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4ypcfw1rmdzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Joachim Lindenberg:
...
|Joachim Lindenberg:
|> To some extend the approach probably replaces blocking calls on
|> TCP layer with blocking calls on DNS. If we see DNS also moving
|
|Postfix blocks on DNS. The S
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4ynn0f4f5gzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|I scanned the draft version 3. On the Postfix side this appears
|to involve:
|
|- For "_smtps._tcp.example.com" SRV responses that don't name the
|standard SMTP port, it may be helpful to automatically turn on T
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|
|> I did not want to initiate a discussion, actually.
|
|And who would have guessed? Just push a feature which does not serve a
|real purpose. Discussions are *so* last year.
That not; I would not say
Hello Wietse Venema.
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4yn8j34j6lzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Full disclosure: I was the original finder of the STARTTLS plaintext
|injection problem, which affected Postfix and several other SMTP
|server implementations. See the text and links to other
Good evening.
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> There is nothing to link. postfix already supports SRV. [...]
|
|Seriously? You refer to a draft, then don't bother to link to it, or
Normally, yes.
|mention that you are the auth
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4ymsrw3pqbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Btw why do you say "odd"? SRV has the possibility for port 0 ever
|> since it was created, yet port 0 never was a valid port. So to
|> the contra
Ralph Seichter wrote in
:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|>>Are you referring to [1], i.e. your own draft? "Nenne Ross und
|>>Reiter."
|>
|> Well i think that became obvious from the rest of the message.
|
|I think it is just good manners to let p
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4ymsrw3pqbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Btw why do you say "odd"? SRV has the possibility for port 0 ever
|> since it was created, yet port 0 never was a valid port. So to
|> the contra
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 06:45:22AM +0100, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users \
|wrote:
|> * Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|>
|>> there is this IETF draft which asks for support SMTPS (aka really,
|>> now), that is Implicit
A. Schulze via Postfix-users wrote in
<4f547a98-3319-48cd-93bd-7233f2263...@andreasschulze.de>:
|Am 29.12.24 um 06:45 schrieb Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users:
|> * Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|>
|>> there is this IETF draft which asks for support SMTPS (aka reall
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|
|> there is this IETF draft which asks for support SMTPS (aka really,
|> now), that is Implicit TLS via dedicated port for SMTP.
|
|Are you referring to [1], i.e. your own draft? "Nenne Ross
Hello dear Wietse Venema, Viktor Dukhovni, all,
there is this IETF draft which asks for support SMTPS (aka really,
now), that is Implicit TLS via dedicated port for SMTP.
It is not offending Viktor's DANE for SMTP (which i for example
cannot use at all without starting to run my own nameserver, as
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4yhffl6qs3zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
|> <4ygfy22qc4zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|>|The "full name" encoding for Postfix-generated From: h
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4ygfy22qc4zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The "full name" encoding for Postfix-generated From: headers is
|implemented. Code will be released after it has matured.
|
|Documentation:
|https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#full_name_encoding_charset
Tha
Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote in
<061f7d25-03bc-424c-baf3-3126ab24e...@mediasat.pl>:
|On 2024-12-20 01:33, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
|>
|> This seems wrong:
|>
|> if [ ! "$set" ]; then
i think this is right for sh(1).
This is because [] with the basic set of arguments is
Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote in
<20241211083755.ga28...@rafa.eu.org>:
|Dnia 11.12.2024 o godz. 08:44:48 Tobi via Postfix-users pisze:
|> I know that this is not a postfix issue, but I have the hope that
|> someone from DHL is on this list :-)
|
|I think you would have better chance s
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20241209200938.b_QFFAp_@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
| <4y6wzc64lqzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
||Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
||> postfix_status() {
||> # As postfix does not use stdo
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4y6wzc64lqzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> postfix_status() {
|> # As postfix does not use stdout but console, no
|> #postfix__init
|> #${prog} status 2>&1
|
|
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4y5ppz1xwmzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
|> I'm revisiting debian packaging of postfix, and noticed that a lot \
|> of stuff is done
|> in quite sophisticated, twisty, or outright wrong way due to a simple \
|> issue:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4y2kjv2ymrzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|braham--- via Postfix-users:
|> Issue: I have a postfix cluster for outgoing mail. When the mail header
|> or any line exceeds the line_length_limit then the email is broken. As
|> per the doc, postfix breaks t
Oh, i blindly followed Reply-To: it seems.
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso ---
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:43:00 +0100
Author: Steffen Nurpmeso
From: Steffen Nurpmeso
To: Wietse Venema
Subject: Re: [pfx] PATCH: 8bit GECOS in From not encoded?
Message-ID: <20241202204300.MYV3Kr-t@steffen%sdao
postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>> Is it worth it?
|>
|> It's easy to do, but I recommend ... have the web server return a \
|> redirect
|> (302 status)
|
|If running Apache it's even easier. Point the DNS. Add the non-www name in
(I thought he just tried that renault.de stuff
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xqckf3rcczj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|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
Fred Morris via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
|>
|> I have a somewhat hard time understanding why greylisting shall be
|> useful for known domains, unless (maybe) these are somewhat
|> top-level ones?
|Coincidentally I
jeff--- via Postfix-users wrote in
<27de030dcf942f5ad58dc8fc753ac4d28644f...@lilo.org>:
|November 13, 2024 at 10:11 PM, "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users" mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org?to=%22Wietse%20Vene\
|ma%20via%20Postfix-users%22%20%3Cpostfix-users%40postfix.org%3E > wrote:
...
|> That
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xylr42wskzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|John Stoffel via Postfix-users:
|>> "Wietse" == Wietse Venema via Postfix-users > rg> writes:
|>> John Stoffel:
| "Wietse" == Wietse Venema via Postfix-users >>> .org> writes:
...
|>>> Is the
te the "From:" header, with at least 2 drawbacks:
...
|On 2024-10-23 00:35:54 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
...
|> That is what Author: is meant for btw.
...
|> In general it is surely only a user interface question if Author:
|> would finally be adopted.
|
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xxvvh0xgwzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Vincent Lefevre via Postfix-users:
|[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
|> As DMARC protection, some mailing-lists (like postfix-users)
|> rewrite the "From:" header, with at least 2 drawbacks:
|> * This breaks
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xvshz0yglzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
|workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
I promote the Author: of RFC 9057 shall a time of sanity be
reached (again .. maybe) in the future
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xvs4j0h5qzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users:
|> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
|>> [...]
|>> Do you expect the postfix devs to release containers for every popular
|>> combination of distribution and containeriz
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list \
|etiquette.]
How about adding a Mail-Followup-To: header then?
Even though it never became a standard, that is even more so
a pity today with that current "x via y" rewriting that places
Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On 15/10/2024 14:36, Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users wrote:
|>
|> Good morning,
|>
|> Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users writes:
|>
|>> Dnia 14.10.2024 o godz. 13:03:48 Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users \
|>> pisze:
|>>>
|>>> In a nutshe
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:23:12PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
|
|>|For good reasons, Postfix 3.x does not enable chroot by default
|>|since 10+ years. If a distro maintainer keeps it on, then they own
|>|the responsibili
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xkqfs5trnzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Vincent Lefevre via Postfix-users:
|>> That eliminates most of the threats that Postfix chroot aims to
|>> address, and there is no need to run Postfix daemons chrooted.
|>
|> OK. I suppose that this should be t
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:59:47PM +, Ren Jyan via Postfix-users wrote:
|> I still want to try using a SOCKS5 proxy.
|
|I can try, but I personally prefer to not provide the kind of help which
|I balance I consider to be harming the real inter
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-08-05 11:57:
|>>So, even setting DMARC policy to "quarantine" or "reject" would not
|>>cause problems.
|
|On 05.08.24 12:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
|>i want to beli
Robert L Mathews via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Jul 31, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users \
| wrote:
|> FYI Mailman 2 claims to rewrite From: header to fullfill DMARC requireme\
|> nts only when DMARC policy is "quarantine" or "reject"
|
|That's the "dmarc_moderati
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
<87a5i6pesk@ra.horus-it.com>:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso:
|
|>>I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse to support
|>>something which introduces a significant security risk.
|>
|> Now you exaggerate a bit.
|
|Not really, the original exa
Ralph Seichter, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
<87v80ujyjr@ra.horus-it.com>:
|* Bob via Postfix-users:
|
|> I get it might be a bit flakey from a security perspective and should
|> come with warnings but it is my box.
|
|I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse t
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wtl814dp5zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Keith wrote in
|> :
|>|Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
...
|> The op wants to be able to reject the one emails
Keith wrote in
:
|Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
|
|Then again I might take heart from the suggestion that this has been
|done before although the mention of blocklisting and coloured flags
|suggests others decided it was a bad idea.
|
|I get that cause
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>* Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
|>> Some systems are configured to "oversign" headers, essentially signing
|>> the non-existence.
|
|On 24.07.24 02:11, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
|>Shhh! We don't want to advertise that in this
Bob via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|I know of such things but I am not sure that they are the solution to
|my problem in as much as they are lists of known spammers.
|
|Other than the Hotmail SEO/APP Cretins I have, fingers crossed, only
|suffered from two persistent idiots that are rejected i
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240713195449.kkT1qOkd@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
And then, in short. Isn't it extremely unkind.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen ru
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:10:41PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
|> :
|>|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> ...
|>|No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an exp
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...
|No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
|maximum.
|
|>|> Letting aside the "extended MAIL" client command that i never have
|>|> seen, what i would hope
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
|> Well, i do not know, .. but i have
|>
|> message_size_limit = 50
|
|Wow, that's rather restrictive in age when disk capacities are starting
|to be measured
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wk8qr69xlzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> That looks doable, but it seems to me that i then have to use
|> a very high limit which postfix announces via "250-SIZE", and
|> reject many
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wk63t2dvkzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The Postfix message size limit is an MTA property, not something
|that varies with the sender. Or client. Or recipient address. If
|you want to allow a larger size, increase message_size_limit, and
|use postfwd or
Hello.
Well, i do not know, .. but i have
message_size_limit = 50
which postfix transforms to RFC 1870
250-SIZE 50
(Btw, does the client part of RFC 1870 actually exist in practice?
I cannot recall to have seen it. Does postfix log such client
declarations? Would not think it doe
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Jeff Pang via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-23 00:54:
|> I know how to setup postfix + opensrs for email forwarding. But google
|> "why email forwarding is a bad idea" will get a lot of results. Should
|> we not enable forwarding in now days? Th
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 07:12:01PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users \
|wrote:
|>>|> Jun 7 23:41:16 outwall/smtpd[19222]: warning: run-time library \
|>>|> vs. compile-time header version mismatch: OpenSSL 3.3.0 may not \
|>>|> be comp
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vxyjs1khtzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|> ...
|>|> Jun 7 23:41:16 outwall/smtpd[19222]: warning: run-time library \
|>|> vs. compile-time header version mismatch: OpenSSL 3.3.0 may not \
|>|> be compatible with OpenSSL 3.2.0
|> ...
|>|[.] Ope
Jeffrey Walton (who is noloader at gmail) pointed out an
interesting point regarding some postfix log message that can be
seen on AlpineLinux edge (again).
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso ---
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 02:44:46 +0200
Author: Steffen Nurpmeso
...
Subject: Re: ssl update needs reb
Alexander Leidinger via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Am 2024-05-22 01:22, schrieb Greg Sims via Postfix-users:
|> TLS connection reuse is being used. About 10% of the connections are
|> reused for large volume ISPs. Small volume ISPs do not see connection
|> reuse. I believe this is as expected
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-15 11:25:
|> Can someone explain why bl.spamcop.net reverses the ipv6 ip, thus not
|> recognizing it like postscreen?
This is the usual way to do reverse lookups. RFC 1034 from 1987:
2. Host add
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240513204918.ga80...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|This discussion seems of-topic for the postfix-users mailing list.
Yes, i apologise, and am silent now.
|If you feel strongly about how email is authenticated, I suggest
|that you join the relevant working
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 03:59:27AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
...
|> v0.6.1, 2024-05-12:
|> - Adds the algorithm big_ed-sha256 which effectively is RFC 8463
|> (aka ed25519-sha256), but performs three digest operation
I promise this is the last one.
s-postgray by the end of the *next* week.
Good night!
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso ---
Subject: [S-announce] [ANN]ounce of s-dkim-sign v0.6.1
Hello people.
Well here i am indeed back again, to announce
v0.6.1, 2024-05-12:
- Adds the algorithm big_e
Yet another "forward", very unfortunate, sorry!
In short: s-dkim-sign generates *correct* Ed25519 signatures,
despite what your DKIM verifier *may* say.
No new release will happen (now, and due to this, at least).
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20240509012805.7jdxCPXC@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Hello y
Hello.
I am very sorry to disturb again, but please allow me that one in
addition.
(Btw i will not forward *that*, but by the next weekend i will
have released another version of s-postgray which fixes a bug and
gains a new "no-timeout" mode, ie, entries which are so old that
their last usage tim
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vvgyx1yynzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
|> Looks like there is sufficient basis to make SMTPD_QUIT_NC rerquests
|> thts from Postfix. Just need to figure out how to enable/disable
|> this particular command based on the
Hello.
I hope it is acceptable to forward this.
Maybe someone finds it of value.
Thank you for postfix, and thank you all. This list gives very
helpful non-fooling information, and i am grateful it exists.
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso ---
...
Tonight i finally uploaded the first releas
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vtb9v00wbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> But one thing is plain, if lines get folded "artificially" to
|> satisfy line length limits, then this is a whitespace that DKIM
|> will see,
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vtlbf3vz0zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Postfix does not store line endings internally, because different
|environments have different line ending conventions (for example
|SMTP has while UNIX has ). Postfix strips line endings
|on input, and adds them
John Levine wrote in
<20240430015342.8DF9C89B9BE7@ary.local>:
|It appears that Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
|said:
|W> |I did not want to insult you!
|>|In mind i had these canon..py snippets
|>|
|>| def strip_trailing_whitespace(content):
|>|return re.su
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240429215451.hPgOZwzc@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote in
| <53d75fd8-e109-4712-ba9c-4ea07aa2b...@kitterman.com>:
||On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
|| wrote:
||&g
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vstkr2gkhzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
|> <4vsq5f6q3nzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|>|Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
|> ..
|>|> SMTP head
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote in
<53d75fd8-e109-4712-ba9c-4ea07aa2b...@kitterman.com>:
|On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
| wrote:
|>Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in
|> :
...
|>|That’s why I formed a hypothesis that (my) Post
Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Thanks very much for the detailed response. My original issue was why \
|dkim signatures were failing on some emails from email lists when arriving \
|at my Postfix based domain (postfix-3.4.10-1.fc30.x86_64 - I know it \
|needs updating: and that may be
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vsq5f6q3nzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
..
|> SMTP headers are often 'folded' as they flow through MTAs. The
|> standard approach to folding and unfolding is covered in rfcs 5322
...
|3) Lines that exceed 998 bytes (not in
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vqwxx2jpbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|> * For smfi_chgheader, filter order is important. Later
|>filters will see the header changes made by earlier ones.
|
|Yes, that is fundamental to the way that the Milter API works. Each
|Milter "in
Hello.
I am still writing my DKIM signer (or, actually, for over six
weeks, i got distracted and ran away due to header remove code,
and realization that all RFCs written after Y2K seem to introduce
their own syntax rules instead of simply going for *822 or 2045,
etc etc etc; including DKIM :().
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vkgxb47fdzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Mr. Peng via Postfix-users:
|> I saw this configuration in our master.cf as follows.
|>
|> What's the difference between the option "smtpd_relay_restrictions" and
|> "smtpd_recipient_restrictions"? In my opinion
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4trq1c66rlzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> What if i would have multiple smtpd listening on different xy and
|> each needs different settings? Would i need different main.cf's
|> for each of th
Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote in
<56abb6d4-e690-4f94-aadb-2f646a6d1...@prime.gushi.org>:
|> On Mar 6, 2024, at 16:52, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users @postfix.org> wrote:
|> Alex via Postfix-users:
|>> Hi,
|>> I have a few postfix systems on fedora38 with nearly identical
|>> configura
Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 00:22:31 +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
|wrote:
|> Thanks to the README i got it going with
|>
|> masquerade_domains = $mydomain
|> local_header_rewrite_clients = permit_mynetworks,permit_tls
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4tqsmy5jfczj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
|> Again, Postfix does not store line terminators, not when email comes
|> from UNIX tool with \n, via SMTP with \r\n, or encapsulated as
|> netstrings which uses neither.
|>
|
Claus Assmann via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240307053606.ga48...@veps.esmtp.org>:
|On Wed, Mar 06, 2024, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
|
|>> Again, Postfix does not store line terminators, not when email comes
|>> from UNIX tool with \n, via SMTP with \r\n, or encapsulated as
|>> net
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4tqsmy5jfczj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
|> Again, Postfix does not store line terminators, not when email comes
|> from UNIX tool with \n, via SMTP with \r\n, or encapsulated as
|> netstrings which uses neither.
|>
|
Hello.
One more i just had forgotten. I tried to enable easy
One. Last. Message. Of mine.
And sorry for all this mostly off-topic noise.
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20240306214948.V5gSjSiU@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
| <20231030191124.5ou-x%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
||It seems to me there is not much inte
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20231030191124.5ou-x%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|It seems to me there is not much interest of mail operators in
|stepping to ed25519, reducing the payload of DNS and email?
|I know dkimpy supports it (and more -- but is python, uuuh!) for
|lon
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240306200252.7CXzMIAH@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
| <20240306195734.nj_iAyWy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
||A last check.
||Thank you, postfix-users@.
I am deeply sorry and am now stopping this, but
Hello Scott Kitterman.
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote in
:
..
|As far as I know, we're doing it mostly correctly I'm dkimpy (see below). \
| It's used in lots of ways that have nothing to do with postfix, so \
|I am strongly inclined to believe it's right or there would have been \
Hello.
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240306195734.nj_iAyWy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|A last check.
|Thank you, postfix-users@.
Authentication-Results: list.sys4.de; dkim=pass header.d=sdaoden.eu;
arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=none
So it seems to me
A last check.
Thank you, postfix-users@.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
___
Postfix-users ma
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240306194657.5KGvOP2Q@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Ah, please.
|Let me please reply to this thread once more, to be sure. (The
|other did not have folded.)
|(Pressing thumbs!)
That failed. But i replied to that again to a Google account, and
Ah, please.
Let me please reply to this thread once more, to be sure. (The
other did not have folded.)
(Pressing thumbs!)
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240306193747.mAtzRjYs@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
...
|My milter now treats LF and CR not in a CRLF as real whitespace.
|The email i just sent was accepted by Google, this one should also
|wrap, and we see what this software does (rspamd is it i
Hello Wietse Venema :)
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4tqhxw0ksyzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
|> <4tqh100n6pzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|>|Are you trying to say that Postfix r
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4tqh100n6pzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Are you trying to say that Postfix represents a multiline message
|header as text with \n instead of \r\n?
Yes.
|That is very well possible. Postfix strips \n and \r\n line terminators
|on input, and the MIME pa
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4tqwct4jgczj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
|> The text should have said:
|>
|> Other command-line arguments
|> Specify "{" and "}" around command arguments that must start
|> with "{" or that must contain whitespace
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240306000832.cK3_SjGH@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
| <20240306000454.itbj3nHU@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|
| Authentication-Results: list.sys4.de; dkim=fail header.d=sdaoden.eu;
| arc=none (Messag
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
