ostfix to change the
> default milter action to quarantine.
>
> Ergo, my question is: what?s the best way to take the queue file and convert
> it back to something which most closely resembles what came in over the wire?
> The read generated by postcat has some weird
change the default milter action to quarantine.
Ergo, my question is: what’s the best way to take the queue file and
convert it back to something which most closely resembles what came in
over the wire? The read generated by postcat has some weird wrapping
and formatting.
man postcat
question is: what’s the best way to take the queue file and convert it
back to something which most closely resembles what came in over the wire? The
read generated by postcat has some weird wrapping and formatting.
-Dan
___
Postfix-users mailing list
12:15:
> I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved
> to the HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s)
> of that message.
i am pretty sure same results are in postfix 1.x.x :)
> Additionally, even after releasing the me
David Marco via Postfix-users:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved to the
> HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s) of that
> message.
>
> Additionally, even after releasing the message from H
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-07-22 12:15:
I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved
to the HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s)
of that message.
i am pretty sure same results are in postfix 1.x.x :)
Ad
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-07-22 14:02:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
In older versions I recall that recipients were visible regardless of
the queue status.
Are you using mail_scanner or some other non-Postfix software
to manipulate messages in the postfix queue
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved to the
> HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s) of that
> message.
>
> Additionally, even after releasing the
Hi,
I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved to the
HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s) of that message.
Additionally, even after releasing the message from HOLD to the deferred queue
using postsuper -H , the mailq output s
Occasionally
>> it can get up to 60.
>
> Long IDs have a documented info-bearing format. See postconf(5). In short:
> everything before the 'z' is a timestamp and after the 'z' is an encoded form
> of the queue file inode number. Whatever pattern you are
Why do all the bounces have the PPn at the end and none of the other emails
have that (granted a small sample)?
-- Doug
> On Apr 17, 2025, at 01:25, Dmitriy Alekseev
> wrote:
>
> Queue ID has nothing to do with indication of spam or not. It's unique
> identifier inside
short: everything before the 'z' is a timestamp and after the 'z' is an
encoded form of the queue file inode number. Whatever pattern you are
seeing is a local ephemeral quirk of your filesystem.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo@
Long IDs and not a lot of spam. Normal is in the 10s daily. Occasionally it
can get up to 60.
-- Doug
> On Apr 17, 2025, at 01:39, Dmitriy Alekseev
> wrote:
>
> Are you using long queue ids? Or short? Short one has a big collision field
> and basically mostly depends on
Lately, when I look at the mail queue I see IDs that end in PPn where n is an
integer. So far, all of them have been bounces of spam. Is my understanding
correct and if so is there a way to automagically dequeue those? Thanks,
-- Doug
___
Postfix
Are you using long queue ids? Or short? Short one has a big collision field
and basically mostly depends on time, so I can assume you got bunch of spam
in one period of time. Again: queue-id is your local id, it has nothing
outside of your system, except cases when sending side get logged &quo
Queue ID has nothing to do with indication of spam or not. It's unique
identifier inside postfix for specific email, it not mean anything outside
of it.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025, 09:53 Doug Hardie via Postfix-users, <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> Lately, when I look at the mail q
applemacpls via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> what is the purpose of 'saved' queue (/var/spool/postfix/saved)?
> Which daemon are using it? When and How?
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#dont_remove
dont_remove (default: 0)
Don't remove queue files and sa
Hello,
what is the purpose of “saved” queue (/var/spool/postfix/saved)?
Which daemon are using it? When and How?
Thanks
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Thomas Landauer via Postfix-users:
> A detail first:
> At
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_delay_open_until_valid_rcpt
> please change "mail transaction ID" to "queue ID" for consistency here:
> > The downside is that rejected recipients are
Hi,
thanks!
A detail first:
At
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_delay_open_until_valid_rcpt
please change "mail transaction ID" to "queue ID" for consistency here:
The downside is that rejected recipients are logged with NOQUEUE instead of a
mail transa
, incoming emails are properly
placed into the "hold" queue, so that I can process those latter.
How can I identify which emails are in the hold queue because of a
failing milter, and not because of another reason?
I suppose that you configured "milter_default_action = quarantine"
Thomas Landauer via Postfix-users:
> Since you're creating the queue ID only after `RCPT TO`, we have the
> sender's and the main recipient's address at hand - that would be enough
> to set up something like a `queue_id_prefix_map` :-)
First, the queue ID is not the pl
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:46:42PM +0100, Thomas Landauer via Postfix-users
wrote:
> A detail first:
> At http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_delay_open_until_valid_rcpt
> please change "mail transaction ID" to "queue ID" for consistency here:
>
Hi,
thanks!
A detail first:
At
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_delay_open_until_valid_rcpt
please change "mail transaction ID" to "queue ID" for consistency here:
The downside is that rejected recipients are logged with NOQUEUE instead of a
mail transa
s (not all). To find out, I have to query
> the database for the Queue-ID. This step could be skipped if it would be
> possible to prefix something like `foo.` to the Queue-ID.
Why not request success/failure delivery status notifications, and give
each messages a unique ENVID. Then you'l
e to
> query the database for the Queue-ID. This step could be skipped if it
> would be possible to prefix something like `foo.` to the Queue-ID.
>
> (I know that there are other lines in the logfile with more details
> about the mail, but putting all those lines together is proba
Is it true that the Queue-ID is generated before Postfix receives the
message content? After which SMTP command?
By default during the RCPT TO stage. But can be changed to happen earlier
during the MAIL FROM stage with performance trade offs.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
my use case: I want to find out if outgoing messages were delivered
successfully, so I'm looking at the lines containing `status=` in the
logfile.
But I need this only for some mails (not all). To find out, I have to query
the database for the Queue-ID. This step could be skipped if it
Hi,
my use case: I want to find out if outgoing messages were delivered
successfully, so I'm looking at the lines containing `status=` in the
logfile.
But I need this only for some mails (not all). To find out, I have to
query the database for the Queue-ID. This step could be skipped
> placed into the "hold" queue, so that I can process those latter.
>
> How can I identify which emails are in the hold queue because of a
> failing milter, and not because of another reason?
I suppose that you configured "milter_default_action = quarantine".
The Mi
Hi list,
I have a Postfix 3.7.11 server configured with the following lines:
smtpd_milters = inet:xx.xx.xx.xx:9900
milter_default_action = quarantine
When the milter server is unavailable, incoming emails are properly
placed into the "hold" queue, so that I can process those latter.
Joan Moreau via Postfix-users:
> Hi Wiestse?
>
> I have no "claim", I am not " accusing" anyone of anything, I am just
> sharing a problem I have and happy to work together on finding the root
> cause.
>
> Being aggressive with users won' t work
Please provide logging that shows that mail enters
Hi Wiestse
I have no "claim", I am not " accusing" anyone of anything, I am just
sharing a problem I have and happy to work together on finding the root
cause.
Being aggressive with users won' t work
Best
Joan
On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 11:00 -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Vikto
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:55:54PM +0800, Joan Moreau via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > > This should be either the instance independent:
> > >
> > > relay/unix/syslog_name =
> > > ${multi_instance_name?{$multi_instance_name}:{postfix}}/$service_name
> > >
>
here's the logging showing messages ending up
> > in a different instance than the one that received them?
>
> How can I log anything ? The email arrive in one of the multi and
> endup in teh " default" queue. There is nothing in between
You don't log anything, your P
heck!).
it is
That's not "evidence". Where's the logging showing messages ending up
in a different instance than the one that received them?
How can I log anything ? The email arrive in one of the multi and
endup in teh " default" queue. There is nothing in between
e (check!).
> For the evidence, I am routing the emails by the source sender via exim to
> specific relays (running on postfix on the same machine, each binding on one
> IP)
That's not "evidence". Where's the logging showing messages ending up
in a different instance
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:31:53AM +0800, Joan Moreau via Postfix-users wrote:
> I am using the " multi" postifx
> : https://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
>
> When an email is ending in the queue for relaunch, it goes to the
> principal process, not the
Also un ls -alR in /var/spool/postfix/0 gives the list of pending
emails, while ls -alR in /var/spool/postfix/x (x>0) shows an empty queue
I would expect, if I am not worng, that queued messages are getting in
/var/spool/postfix/x according to the instance handling the emaili,
isnt&
me?{$multi_instance_name}:{postfix}}
--
relay/unix/syslog_name = postfix/$service_name
=
For the evidence, I am routing the emails by the source sender via exim
to specific relays (running on postfix on the same machine, each binding
on one IP)
Email sent to one postfix on one IP (corre
Joan Moreau via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I am using the " multi" postifx
> https://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
>
> When an email is ending in the queue for relaunch, it goes to the
> principal process, not hte one where it has firstly managed
Mon, 2024-10-21 at 09:31 +0800, Joan Moreau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using the " multi" postifx
> : https://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
>
> When an email is ending in the queue for relaunch, it goes to the
> principal process, not hte one where it has f
Hi,
I am using the " multi" postifx
: https://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
When an email is ending in the queue for relaunch, it goes to the
principal process, not hte one where it has firstly managed by
(says if I have 2 instance p1 and p2, I send the mail with p2,
es, and
> > the inbound mail for these mailboxes should be put on hold on the
> > postfix directly before it is being sent to Exchange.
> >
> > I was under the impression that I could either put the mailboxes
> > directly in a transport table, with a hold: transport - but that
ix directly before it is being sent to Exchange.
>
> I was under the impression that I could either put the mailboxes
> directly in a transport table, with a hold: transport - but that
> results in "transport not found - deferred".
Impression based on what? There is a
Hi!
We are running a pretty big postfix installation for a big corporate customer.
Next week, there are migrations in the backend for some mailboxes, and
the inbound mail for these mailboxes should be put on hold on the
postfix directly before it is being sent to Exchange.
I was under the impres
Tobi via Postfix-users:
> Hi list
>
> maybe someone has a good idea :-)
>
> I'm looking for a way to reliably determine how long a message sits in
> active queue. Currently I use postqueue -j and pipe it to jq, get only
> hits from queue_id==active and then get arrival
Hi list
maybe someone has a good idea :-)
I'm looking for a way to reliably determine how long a message sits in
active queue. Currently I use postqueue -j and pipe it to jq, get only
hits from queue_id==active and then get arrival time, sort it by
arrival time, take the oldest and calculat
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Gino Ferguson via Postfix-users:
> > We have a relay server which has been working fine (postfix
> > 3.3.0-1ubuntu0.4)
> > Now there are ~20K mails in the active queue for a certain recipient
> > and they are just sitting there.
>
Gino Ferguson via Postfix-users:
> We have a relay server which has been working fine (postfix 3.3.0-1ubuntu0.4)
> Now there are ~20K mails in the active queue for a certain recipient
> and they are just sitting there.
Wietse Venema:
> What does the output look like from:
> grep s
Nothing. There are no status lines for these certain recipients. The last log
entry is the 'queue active' for each mail.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Friday, April 19th, 2024 at 2:42 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Gino Ferguson via Postfix-use
Gino Ferguson via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
>
> We have a relay server which has been working fine (postfix 3.3.0-1ubuntu0.4)
>
> Now there are ~20K mails in the active queue for a certain recipient and they
> are just sitting there.
>
What does the output look like from
Hi,
> mailq is reporting what reason?
Nothing:
4VLVl807JrzKmp7* 9499 Fri Apr 19 10:10:28 sender@senderdomain
recipient@recipientdomain
> Try grepping for the queueid of such an email.
I'm over that. The last messages are b
* Gino Ferguson via Postfix-users :
> Hi,
>
>
> We have a relay server which has been working fine (postfix 3.3.0-1ubuntu0.4)
>
> Now there are ~20K mails in the active queue for a certain recipient and they
> are just sitting there.
mailq is reporting what reason?
Hi,
We have a relay server which has been working fine (postfix 3.3.0-1ubuntu0.4)
Now there are ~20K mails in the active queue for a certain recipient and they
are just sitting there.
Such an email just comes in from the client, gets its queue id, etc. and lands
in the active queue. Then it
You can also configure a non-zero smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
On 07.03.24 17:21, Colin McKinnon via Postfix-users wrote:
H, not so sure about that. The docs do advise against this for
legitimate traffic - and I've yet to see anything in the documentation that
describes what happens when
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:11:09PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I am planning to look at increasing the size of the Active queue however I
> > would need to resize to a minimum of 50x based on past events.
>
> That should be OK as long as your syustem has
Colin McKinnon via Postfix-users:
> Thank you, Viktor.
>
> I am planning to look at increasing the size of the Active queue however I
> would need to resize to a minimum of 50x based on past events.
That should be OK as long as your syustem has enough memory.
> > You can al
Thank you, Viktor.
I am planning to look at increasing the size of the Active queue however I
would need to resize to a minimum of 50x based on past events.
> You can also configure a non-zero smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
H, not so sure about that. The docs do advise against this
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 12:26:06PM +, Colin McKinnon via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I look after a SAAS site where customers can send emails to their own
> domains. At times some of our customers can initiate sending of large mail
> volumes - which can swamp the active queue.
Given s
Hi,
I look after a SAAS site where customers can send emails to their own
domains. At times some of our customers can initiate sending of large mail
volumes - which can swamp the active queue.
>From [1]:
"The only way to reduce congestion is to either reduce the input rate or
incr
> On 27. Jan 2024, at 14:23, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Aleksandar Ivanisevic via Postfix-users:
>> i would like to have maximal_queue_lifetime (and possibly some
>> other parameters) based on the sender address. So I did the following
>
> This request is unlikely to be impl
l_alias_maps, used in both smtpd(8)
for recipient validation, and cleanup(8) for address rewriting)
you may not get the results you expected.
See the smtpd(8) manpage for the list of parameters known to smtpd(8),
and qmgr(8) and trivial-rewrite(8) for the parameters that are
"queue-wide",
Aleksandar Ivanisevic via Postfix-users:
> i would like to have maximal_queue_lifetime (and possibly some
> other parameters) based on the sender address. So I did the following
This request is unlikely to be implemented. It is one of those
features that benefit a very small fraction of the pupula
Hi,
i would like to have maximal_queue_lifetime (and possibly some other
parameters) based on the sender address. So I did the following
in main.cf
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relay_by_sender
in /etc/postfix/relay_by_sender
mysender.com smtp:[localhost]:588
i
Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users:
> * Wietse Venema via Postfix-users :
>
> > Start by looking for "@domain" wildcards in virtual_alias_maps or
>
> Somewhat related: I was under the impression that virtual_alias_maps
> "@domainA @domainB" did NOT break recipient verifiction. Or am I
> hallucina
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users :
> Start by looking for "@domain" wildcards in virtual_alias_maps or
Somewhat related: I was under the impression that virtual_alias_maps
"@domainA @domainB" did NOT break recipient verifiction. Or am I
hallucinating?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT
Israel britto via Postfix-users:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
> Hey, I have a strange problem, my incoming queue is growing and my active and
> deferred queues are low on queue items. I checked and I have a lot of
> incoming mailer-daemon and double-bounce emails, is there
* Israel britto via Postfix-users :
> Hey, I have a strange problem, my incoming queue is growing and my
> active and deferred queues are low on queue items. I checked and I
> have a lot of incoming mailer-daemon and double-bounce emails, is
> there a way to discard these messages
Hey, I have a strange problem, my incoming queue is growing and my active and
deferred queues are low on queue items. I checked and I have a lot of incoming
mailer-daemon and double-bounce emails, is there a way to discard these
messages?
I've already tried to create a transport_map by se
message ID? How can I remove this message from
the queue?
postfix will do this after 5 days, but impatient people can do
"postsuper -d "
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/172.67.130.119.html
seems that ip is dynamic, and you try delivery to it when port 25 is
blocked ?
postfix/smtp[1419048]: 3B862A27CE:
> > to=, relay=none, delay=211, delays=151/0.02/60/0,
> > dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to xxx.xxx[172.67.130.119]:25:
> > Connection timed out)
> >
> > So "3B862A27CE" is the message ID? How can I remove this m
ot; is the message ID? How can I remove this message
from the queue?
Thanks
To delete the message and remove it permanently, use
postsuper -d 3B862A27CE
Often a better choice is to expire the message so the sender gets a
non-delivery notice.
postsuper -e 3B862A27CE
See the postsuper man pag
e from the
queue?
Thanks
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 12:30:32PM -0700, Bryan Arenal wrote:
> I have ~1000 emails that were previously sent from a different
> platform (but failed due to a system error) and I've been asked to see
> if we can re-send them with our Postfix server.
Do you have accurate records of the intended en
27; as well as dropping a test file
into /var/spool/postfix/hold and trying to move it into deferred and
then flush the queue but neither of those seemed to work. Is this
even possible?
Thank you in advance!
If these files are well-formed plain text messages, you can use the
postfix sendmail co
l' as well as dropping a test file
> into /var/spool/postfix/hold and trying to move it into deferred and
> then flush the queue but neither of those seemed to work. Is this
> even possible?
Postfix queue files MUST be written by Postfix. You can't put
non-Postfix files the
ar/spool/postfix/hold and trying to move it into deferred and
then flush the queue but neither of those seemed to work. Is this
even possible?
Thank you in advance!
>> (host 50.75.172.140[50.75.172.140] said: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue
> >> file write error (in reply to end of DATA command))
> >
> > You need to look in the logs on 50.75.172.140. The Postfix SMTP
> > server returns a generic "write error" without rev
, delays=0.64/0.01/1.6/0.23, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
(host 50.75.172.140[50.75.172.140] said: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue
file write error (in reply to end of DATA command))
You need to look in the logs on 50.75.172.140. The Postfix SMTP
server returns a generic "write error" without revealing
post...@fongaboo.com:
> Jan 31 20:06:15 h6lix postfix/smtp[6552]: 7128C4089C:
> to=, relay=50.75.172.140[50.75.172.140]:25,
> delay=2.5, delays=0.64/0.01/1.6/0.23, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
> (host 50.75.172.140[50.75.172.140] said: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue
> file write error (in
First off does "queue file write error (in reply to end of DATA command))"
indicate a write error on my server, or on the receiver's server?
Best I can tell from grepping the logs, this is happening only with two
addresses:
Feb 1 07:36:36 h6lix postfix/smtp[22140]:
> “replace Amavis with something faster”
>
> Any suggestions ?
Add the following to amavisd.conf and restart:
$log_level = 2;
$log_templ = $log_verbose_templ;
That way amavisd should log info about timing and rules
which you can use to calculate how long it takes to
process your average email
ers@postfix.org"
*Subject: *Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mail queue took 3 hours to recover from
a flood. Suggestions ?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:06:34PM +, White, Daniel E.
(GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS] wrote:
There was no outage.
The queue filled faster than the processes could process them th
> On 23 Jan 2023, at 18:43, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]
> wrote:
> When I checked, I found max_servers = 2 and max_requests is not set,
You _must_ make sure that whatever you set for $max_servers matches what you
have in your master.cf otherwise it is a pointless exercise - Postfix nee
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]:
> postfix/qmgr[PID]: warning: mail for [127.0.0.1]:10024 is using up NUMBER of
> NUMBER active queue entries
As Viktor noted, Amavis is unable to keep up with incoming mail.
Find out why it is slow. This will require diving into details.
Wietse
Thanks, Arrigo
This helped.
When I checked, I found max_servers = 2 and max_requests is not set,
From: Arrigo Triulzi
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 at 12:37
To: Daniel White
Cc: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Mail queue took 3 hours to recover from a flood.
S
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:30:00PM +, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]
wrote:
> “replace Amavis with something faster”
>
> Any suggestions ?
Well, how about *nothing*. If "nothing" is not the right answer, then
perhaps you know what you're using Amavis for, which can be used to
set cri
On 23 Jan 2023, at 18:30, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]
wrote:
>
> “replace Amavis with something faster”
> Any suggestions ?
Start by tuning amavis, see the end of
https://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.postfix.html - if you do not have
enough copies and they don’t match what you
On 2023-01-23 at 12:06:34 UTC-0500 (Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:06:34 +)
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]
is rumored to have said:
There was no outage.
The queue filled faster than the processes could process them through.
I do not know which limit to increase to accommodate such bursts of
“replace Amavis with something faster”
Any suggestions ?
From: on behalf of Viktor Dukhovni
Reply-To: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 at 12:28
To: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mail queue took 3 hours to
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:06:34PM +, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]
wrote:
> There was no outage.
> The queue filled faster than the processes could process them through.
>
> I do not know which limit to increase to accommodate such bursts of traffic.
>
> I did fi
There was no outage.
The queue filled faster than the processes could process them through.
I do not know which limit to increase to accommodate such bursts of traffic.
I did find 27 instances of this block of info in the logs:
postfix/qmgr[PID]: QUEUE_ID: from=, size=1370, nrcpt=1 (queue
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS]:
> Around 12000 messages.
> The queue went from ~3000 to over 12000 in about 30 minutes and then took 3
> hours to grind through all of them.
>
> I am still trying to determine if this was an accident or not.
> The source claims it was
Around 12000 messages.
The queue went from ~3000 to over 12000 in about 30 minutes and then took 3
hours to grind through all of them.
I am still trying to determine if this was an accident or not.
The source claims it was not intentionally malicious.
Some postconf values
a a non-static IP, not reversible DNS,
> etc.; I'd like it to not send anything but queue until the standard
> route returns.
>
> Is there a postfix way to do this? Or should I be looking at
> lower-level network routing configuration for the server running
> postfix?
Is ther
outer getting to the
internet via a non-static IP, not reversible DNS, etc.; I'd like it to
not send anything but queue until the standard route returns.
Is there a postfix way to do this? Or should I be looking at
lower-level network routing configuration for the server running
postfix?
Op 16-11-2022 om 17:19 schreef Wietse Venema:
Paul van der Vlis:
Hello Wietse and others:
Op 16-11-2022 om 15:36 schreef Wietse Venema:
Paul van der Vlis:
Is there a way to get it refused before-queue?
Yes. IF A MILTER REJECTS A MESSAGE then Postfix will not accept it.
So far I see the
16 18:29:58 hosting postfix/pickup[2114568]: 74D3C2304A: uid=0
from=
Nov 16 18:29:58 hosting postfix/cleanup[2117871]: 74D3C2304A:
message-id=
Nov 16 18:29:58 hosting postfix/qmgr[897]: 74D3C2304A:
from=, size=742, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 16 18:30:00 hosting postfix/smtp[2117877]: 74D
Paul van der Vlis:
Is there a way to get it refused before-queue?
Op 16-11-2022 om 15:36 schreef Wietse Venema:
Yes. IF A MILTER REJECTS A MESSAGE then Postfix will not accept it.
On 16.11.22 17:12, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
root@hosting:~# echo "Test virus body" | mutt -a eicar.
1 - 100 of 1986 matches
Mail list logo
