Assuming that one's configuration has open relay, what does a log entry
for relayed mail look like?
I don't think I've any open relay, but I want to look and make sure.
I've searched for half an hour, and no answer came up. But, I did find
some hints. Specifically, I use this command to list
By the numbers:
1. This is the PostFix mailing list, not a mail client list.
2. Google is probably using their own home-grown MTA, based on what
I've seen in the headers and body. That's GOOGLE, baby!
3. Thunderbird sends out the delivery status return receipt request. I
must emphasize,
On 9/16/22 9:08 AM, Claus Assmann wrote:
FYI: the OP replied to me directly (not sure why) - indicating that
Google "silently dropped" the e-mail even though the log shows it was
accepted (and it wasn't delivered to the "spam folder" either).
Why: pushed the wrong button in Thunderbird
Test:
I have a crontab set up to send me regular reminders on my local mail
account. I've added reminders for a person with a Google mail account.
They haven't been getting the reminders lately.
By doing some testing, I found that Google was silently rejecting mail
from my workstation. The fix was
On 8/10/21 7:00 AM, Mono DHS wrote:
Are there plans to revisit the SMTP command parsing and handling logic
in the server in one form or another? Are people making active use of
the smtpd_forbidden_commands parameter?
Short answer: yes
Longer answer: See this shell sequence:
# postconf s
# Bind submission to specific interfaces, like lo and/or LAN
# (add other options to taste)
#127.0.0.1:submission inet n - y - - smtpd
# -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
#10.1.1.32:submission inet n - y - - smtpd
# -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
Th
I have a mail server running PostFix 3.4.13 (Ubuntu 20.04) and I've
implemented several suggestions from the mail list to stop
ne'er-do-wells. Looking at the currently only ports, I see this for
PostFix:
tcp0 0 0.0.0.0:587 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1427/mast
Problem: someone is probing my Ubuntu 20.04 LTS based mail server.
Along with SSH attacks (now mitigated) I had a number of log messages
saying auth failures in Dovecot. When I traced packets generating these
messages, I found that the packets were being directed to 25/tcp -- Postfix.
I know
On 12/9/19 2:29 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 09 Dec 2019, at 13:54, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Dec 9, 2019, at 3:38 PM, LuKreme wrote:
The configuration as posted, and specifically the line I quoted directly above
my comment, allowed unauthenticated traffic from anything on the LAN. This
means rand
On 11/21/19 2:57 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Same as blocking an entire netblock or ISP because there are spammers within
this netblock or using this ISP (but there are "good" senders there as
well). Which is something a lot of email providers do, nevertheless.
Given that ab...@example.com yields
On 10/27/19 7:38 AM, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
>> Further, the client would need to support the decryption of
>> superencrypted mail,
> there will be no "superencrypted" emails. As I explained in the first
> sentence of my original description, I want to process only emails which
> are not already
On 10/27/19 6:48 AM, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> On 27/10/2019 13.29, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> Several years ago I wrote something like that [1]. However, if your mail
>> server is untrusted I don't think there's a point in bothering.
>
> no server is 100% trusted. By this logic, should I therefo
+1
Back when I was a Web Hosting monkey, I had something like 23 separate
mail servers (Plesk/qmail and CPanel/exim) trying to send mail to the
world. After some of the servers getting blacklisted for one reason or
another, I decided to use a pair of Postfix servers to send outgoing mail.
Incomi
My existing mail server is running Centos 4 (yes, VERY old -- which is a
testament as to the continuing quality of Postfix), with port 25 exposed
to the whole wide world. Everything else is restricted by an IPTABLES
firewall and TCPwrapper. I was going to wait for CentOS 8 to be
released and get
On 6/12/19 11:52 AM, Rafael Azevedo wrote:
> Its not the same result between the final client and the server.
>
> Its the communication between the servers.
>
> [client] >>> [server] >>> [final destination's server]
>
> So this is the part they want me to store:
>
> [server] > EHLO > MAIL FROM
+1
We would need to see exactly how your powershell script detects that
mail was accepted by the target PostFix server. I've written test
equipment software, and one of the biggest thorns in such programming is
to properly report testbed-induced failures.
For example, you could have told your po
On 2019-01-20 14:40, John Stoffel wrote:
> The only problem with Digital Ocean right now is that Charter/Spectrum
> in the US has blocked all (most? At least the one I'm using...) blocks
> assigned to DO for some insane reason.
The insane reason is phishing spam, and DO ignoring abuse notices.
An
On 09/24/2018 08:57 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Gary Chambers:
>> -Queue ID- --Size-- Arrival Time -Sender/Recipient---
>> BF2B5131B8 3116 Mon Sep 24 11:10:44 me@cuddy
>> (host smtp.example.com[00.000.00.000] said: 450 4.1.8 : Sender
>> address rejected: Domain not found (in reply
On 06/03/2018 11:13 PM, Mike Guelfi wrote:
> Upstream RHEL, and therefore CentOS, don't update version numbers when
> they roll security patches.
>
> Latest release though:
> 2016-10-31 - Jaroslav Škarvada - 2:2.6.6-8
> - Backported support for TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2
>From Centos 7.5:
[satch@c7-i5 ~]$
On 05/21/2018 07:31 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
On 05/21/2018 07:06 AM, Postfix User wrote:
I would suggest that you read
this:http://www.postfix.com/DEBUG_README.html
Suggest adding a section "Using a remote filesystem", asking if the
clocks between the PostFix server and the r
On 05/21/2018 07:06 AM, Postfix User wrote:
I would suggest that you read this:http://www.postfix.com/DEBUG_README.html
Suggest adding a section "Using a remote filesystem", asking if the
clocks between the PostFix server and the remote file system are
synchronized.
On 04/21/2018 04:38 AM, Ram wrote:
There is no IO load running everything in /dev/shm
You can verify your claim by running vmstat(8), such as in:
vmstat 20 20
(20 times for 20 seconds each time)
You might be surprised how much file system activity there is, even when
you put all of PostFi
On 04/20/2018 11:12 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
If your application eats up all the memory, then you won't get any
useful message rate outgoing.
And worse, if you overflow DRAM, you now add swap load to the disk,
which further slows things down. One MUST avoid going into swap if
possible, or h
On 04/20/2018 06:44 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
No, there is contention for the file system.
If you disabled in_flow_delay, turn it back on, please. This allows
the queue manager to push back, though it works only for clients
that make few parallel connections.
Looking at master.cf, there is the
On 04/10/2018 10:00 AM, Emanuel wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem when locking with regular expressions
I need match
/^Subject: (Hello there(.*)|Hey man(.*))/ discard
Break it up into two separate entries. There is little cost in doing so.
The | operator is supposed to bind to a single token
On 03/12/2018 08:12 AM, wp.rauchholz wrote:
# POP3
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --syn
--dport 110 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --syn
--dport 995 -j ACCEPT
# IMAP
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -
On 02/25/2018 09:52 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
Really? What runs services automatically? The last time I setup freeeBSD 11.1
(last month) it wasn't even running sshd until I specifically enabled it.
There are other distributions of POSIX-compliant operating systems.
(Let's forego the religious war ab
On 02/25/2018 07:17 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The package that don't matter are just taking a little bit of space,
and it is hardly worth building a system by hand to save a tiny amount
(percentage-wise) of space.
But storage footprint is re-emerging as an issue with the rise of
"cloud" systems li
On 01/30/2018 06:44 PM, Tech Gurus wrote:
Just checking back if there is recommendation to increase outbound mail
delivery .
One additional thought: have you thought about punting the problem, and
configuring PostFix to use a smarthost on a contracted mail service?
One that cares about thei
On 01/30/2018 06:44 PM, Tech Gurus wrote:
Just checking back if there is recommendation to increase outbound mail
delivery .
Can you characterize the distribution of your mail delivery? In other
words, if you take each mailpiece, determine the MX, and collate the
results, do you have a lot
On 01/25/2018 05:58 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
This is not good advice, it breaks delivery to other domains. Much better
to run a local caching resolver. Note also that the OP reports that raising
concurrency does not improve throughput by much. If DNS lookups were slow
higher concurrency woul
On 01/24/2018 02:54 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Sohin Vyacheslav wrote:
Sometimes when server is busy Postfix does not write all the data to
maillog.
Postfix does never write directly to the maillog. This is delegated to
your syslog server. If this one d
On 01/07/2018 03:09 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 01/07/2018 01:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
would detract from the main issue which is "silently discarded emails,"
I behavior that in my view is plain wrong and threatens the usefulness
of email more than a few false positive spam messages.
Absolutely.
On 01/06/2018 09:11 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
On 2018-01-06 05:42 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
I have contacted Outlook.com Deliverability Support and will report back
to the list if the results from the interaction are of public interest.
After reading all the responses, and reading the reference links
OK, I've been using Postfix for, um, years. In fact, the current server
has been running -- and is *still* running -- on CentOS 4 for more than
a decade -- a distribution that's been moribound since early 2012.
Still on PostFix 2.2.10, which is WAY past the sell-by date.
I'm so far into t
On 12/25/2017 12:31 AM, vonProteus wrote:
With one is better and why do you think so?
I’m going to chose one and would like to know your opinion
Interesting you should ask this on the Postfix mailing list. Especially
since because there is no "right" answer.
Over the years, I've worked with
On 12/19/2017 05:25 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
As for forgrounding, this must happen only after the 'postfix
check' sanity checks and repairs complete sucessfully. Running a
'bare' master daemon would violate design assumptions. So this
will require a new 'postfix' subcommand that starts exactly on
On 04/11/2017 07:02 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> - If the sender's DNS setup is borked, Postfix will lose time doing
> DNS lookup for the SMTP client name/address.
One way I minimized this issue was to define a very large cache in the
local DNS service for each dedicated incoming mail server.
This
On Feb 12, 2017 21:07, "Wietse Venema" wrote:
> Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code.
> After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of
> December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a
> mail system was more work than any of my prior
If I recall correctly, Exim is also the MTA installed by default into
CPANEL Web servers. (I surmise that because I'm still on the Exim
mailing list, from more than a decade ago, and I would have no reason to
be on that list otherwise. So long ago...)
Interesting point: when I worked at a Web h
For PostFix in particular?
For mail servers in general?
On 03/11/2016 06:48 AM, Alfredo Saldanha wrote:
Is there some way to use milter check in a type of conditional ?
In my situation here, it can not be mandatory to each message.
I'm asking this because some users here want to receive all messages without
Spam verification.
When I was running mai
On 08/18/2015 06:49 AM, Koko Wijatmoko wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:55:00 -0500
Tom Browder wrote:
So how should the DNS records look? Can anyone give me the exact
settings for the A, CNAME, MX, and PTR records for A.tld and B.tld
(and any other suggested records)?
this is not the best qu
On 07/06/2015 09:34 PM, King Cao wrote:
Many thanks for your shared experience. May I know how to implement
the "smart-hosted"
way you mentioned?
Sorry, I did this seven years ago for a company who decided they didn't
want to pay me money any more for my work. As I recall, I set up a
transpo
On 07/03/2015 07:20 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
We are not the originators of these messages. The users on this system
have a .forward file that's forwarding these messages through to gmail.
Then if you or your customers didn't originate them, then they should
not have been sent from your server. I
On 07/02/2015 11:56 PM, King Cao wrote:
Hi Wietse,
Actually it's our relay mta and can not know if it's deliverable or not
until bounced by downsteam...
King:
I ran into this problem when I used Postfix to front a large number of
Plesk (qmail) and CPanel (exim) systems at a Web hosting compa
On 03/14/2015 12:45 PM, Talen-J wrote:
> Outward emails are timing out.
>
> After nights of of searching and a lot of reading I am at a dead end.
>
> [snip
>
> Traceroute shows mail is leaving my server from UK but being stopped in US
> for some reason (shown below).
>
> My IP address is 104.23
On 01/15/2015 12:43 PM, Mullis, Josh (CCI-Atlanta) wrote:
> Thanks for the fast reply Wietse... If we switch to maildir mode,
> there is still no option to have postfix cleanup old messages,
> correct?
As Wietse currectly points out, the mail exchanger is not the place
where mail needs to be manag
On 11/29/2014 03:52 AM, Christian Rößner wrote:
> The downside is that mail delivery is slightly
> slower. But I think this is okay.
Mail is designed to do everything it can to ensure delivery. Delivery
speed is secondary.
On 11/03/2014 07:04 AM, Kurt Petersen wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've just installed Debian with Postfix and MySQL. Later I found out
> that I also needed the postfix-mysql package.
>
> I now get an error that Postfix cannot connect to
> /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock .
>
> Does anybody got a hint?
>
> Thank
Spam has many sources, as we all know. Mr. Verma stated earlier this
month that header_checks should not be used for spam filtering...and I
found that my mine was out of control, particularly with Subjects, for
just that purpose. Not to mention that the effectiveness of the many,
many checks has
On 10/18/2014 07:01 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
> I have about 8 of these over two days all continue to be retired
>
> I am trying to be pro-active and was just looking if ether was something i
> may have hosed on my side
I forgot to ask: what does your DNS entries look like for your mail
server?
On 10/18/2014 07:01 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
> I have about 8 of these over two days all continue to be retired
>
> I am trying to be pro-active and was just looking if ether was something i
> may have hosed on my side
>
> although this is the only server I have been having problems
>
> I reall
On 10/13/2014 04:54 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> If there is a better way to deal with this nuisance than resorting to
> stricter authentication protocols, I would love to hear alternate
> suggestions. [php direct mailing]
Have you considered adding "system" to the list of disallowed function
calls?
Sometimes we just need to say this.
On 10/10/2014 12:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> It is, and always has been, called "release notes", and it will be
> no different than with other Postfix releases. The big-ticket items
> are detailed in INSTALL (build system) and COMPATIBILITY_README
> (managed transition to new default settings).
On 10/10/2014 10:55 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> However with the incompatible changes in 2), I think that a major
> version number change is necessary. This may cause some delays in
> adoption, but I think it is only fair to people who have come to
> expect that upgrading Postfix is a no-brainer, be
On 10/05/2014 05:40 AM, Henrik Larsson wrote:
> I'm sure not able to give you any evidence that this would lower the
> amount of spam. But giving a spammer, or a malicious user a clue about
> why the mail was blocked, could make him try to find ways around it.
>
> Even if it is just about my warm
On 10/02/2014 01:44 AM, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> What (if there is one) is the current "recommended" book for learning
> Postfix? I've come across "The Book of Postfix" and "The Definitive
> Guide to Postfix", but the both seem to have been released years ago
> and I'm assuming much of the material i
On 08/19/2014 06:39 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> It sounds as if you're trying to monitor postfix health.
I find that logwatch(8) does a pretty good job of pointing up running
issues.
On 08/11/2014 10:17 PM, hagensieker wrote:
> And here is dovecot.conf
How about "/sbin/iptbles -vnL | egrep '((DROP)|(REJECT))" ?
Or, if you are running a mostly-closed firewall configuration, the
output of "/sbin/iptables -vnL | egrep '((:25)|(:143)|(:587))" ?
61 matches
Mail list logo
