Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 09:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 7:33 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Congratulations.
Your help was key. Thanks.
> One of the things I really like about Postfix is the remarkably
> complete and accurate documentation.
You forgot a couple of desc
Success.
Changes required were exactly what Noel suggested, getting the mail past
the pre-queue filter.
In informed hindsight, simple to implement.
In main.cf
- virtual_mailbox_maps =
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/vmailboxes.cf
+ virtual_mailbox_maps =
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/vm
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 06:12 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ok, so what's the practical difference between this 'spamtrap' DISCARD
> solution and simply returning a 5xx unknown user for these addresses?
>
> Does this spammer always send to multiple recipients including at least
> one of thes
Hello
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:36 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > cat /etc/postfix/spamtrap_userparts
> > test1
> > test2
> > test3
> > postmap /etc/postfix/spamtrap_userparts
> Wrong format; table entries must have a result. In this specific
> case, postfix doesn't
Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > So IIUC, I need to RE-add the list of spamtraps in the has table as
> > valid users (removed as valid after known to be compromised ...) so
> > that, rather than being off-hand rejected as an unkonw/non-existent
> > user@domain,
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:11 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Prior to its compromise, it was verifiable as an existing & valid
> > "user@domain" in the virtual user/domain (sql) lookup tables.
>
> If this was at one time an actual address to a mailbox in which someone
> received legit mail
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:46 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 3:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> The check_recipient_access with DISCARD is probably easiest, but the
> spamtrap address must be accepted by the pre-filter postfix.
Looking for the most straightforward place to do this, in my m
Hello rob
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > Based on that, my current understanding of my config is that
> > email is received by postscreen,
>
> No, postscreen receives no mail. It receives a connection,
> identifies it as legitimate, and passes that connection on to smtpd
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 10:32 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you are not asking ONE question, you are trying to misuse a
> mailing-list as replacment read all available docs and
> using google
misuse? consider yourself ignored -- and prattle on all you wish. not
a peep more will be heard from you
Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:31 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> (sorry, had to work for a while)
No worries. Nice to have someone reasonable to chat with. Bit of a dry
spell on that. It's appreciated.
> On 2/23/2012 2:58 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Ah, a different server. Importan
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:13 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> You are not listening.
Actually, I am. And I'm hearing contradcitions, incorrect advice, and
downright snyde comments.
Your presumption that message sent == message received, however, is
rather flawed.
> I believe some serious book-lear
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> You have the spamtrap address configured on 127.0.0.1, but you
> telnet to 192.168.1.10, and then you are surprised that the SMTP
> server on 192.168.1.10 does not know about the spamtrap address.
Frakly, I'm not suprised by a thing. I'm s
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:28 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> sendmail(1) writes mail to a file which is enqueued by the pickup(8)
> daemon. smtpd(8) is not used. smtpd-specific settings such as
> smtpd_sender_restrictions are irrelevant in this mode of submission.
Yes, it does that locally. I am sendin
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - -
> > smtpd
> > ...
> > -o
> >
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
>
> This has a spamtrap on 127
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 08:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > I'm sending my test mail using postfix/sendmail from my desktop to the
> > mail server. Doesn't that qualify as "submitted via SMTP"?
>
> SMTP = Simple mail Transfer Protocol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> > The various smtpd_*_restrictions only work with mail submitted via SMTP.
Even though I still don't understand why the sendmail session I
described isn't "mail submitted via SMTP", I tried a different method of
testing. Usin
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 12:11 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> >
> > sendmail -i -t
> > From: ro...@deskmail.rogermail.lan
> > To: ro...@mail.rogermail.lan,s...@mail.rogermail.lan
> > Subject: test
> >
Hello,
On 02/23/2012 08:55 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> smtpd_sender_restrictions=
>
> Yes, that's where it goes unless you've (unwisely) set
> smtpd_delay_reject=no.
I have not set that.
>> and
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions=
>
> That works too, but needs additional settings. Simpler
Hello everyone,
On 02/23/2012 05:57 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> You can use an access map in the reinjection listener:
>
> # master.cf
> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - - smtpd
> ...
> -o
> smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
I mo
I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue filter.
I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtrap address is in
ANY of the recipients, then delivery of the message to ALL recipients is
quietly DISCARDED.
Seems my misreading/misunderstanding of posts has me a bit con
20 matches
Mail list logo
