e
network
inserted in the payed whitelists, like senderscore, abusix, mailspike
and other popular one's.
Is there a way to insert these RBL whitelists at the 1st query, so
that
the IP get's whitelisted in postfix?
Details depend on the allowlist. For example here are some details at
h
and other popular one's.
>
> Is there a way to insert these RBL whitelists at the 1st query, so that
> the IP get's whitelisted in postfix?
Details depend on the allowlist. For example here are some details at
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=15#postfix
Wietse
_
rride_sender,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net=127.0.0.[1..255],
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[1..255], permit
So there are three override tables before checking RBLs. The first is just a
simple hash table that specifies single domains, networks or IP addresses.
If I want to exclude something f
Howdy,
I have a situation, where, the GMAIL (as hotmail/office65) network ip's,
are almost all blacklisted, BUT, they have at the same time the network
inserted in the payed whitelists, like senderscore, abusix, mailspike
and other popular one's.
Is there a way to insert
RCPT from
mail-db8eur05on2106.outbound.protection.outlook.com[40.107.20.106]:
554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [40.107.20.106] blocked
using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?40.107.20.106;
from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
Is there a way to override rbl
n2106.outbound.protection.outlook.com[40.107.20.106]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [40.107.20.106] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?40.107.20.106; from=
to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
Is there a way to override rbl block for particular domains? Would
adding 'exam
: 554 5.7.1
Service unavailable; Client host [40.107.20.106] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
Blocked - see https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?40.107.20.106;
from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
Is there a way to override rbl block for particular domains? Would
adding 'example.org OK' to sender_ac
On 20-01-2025 23:28, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
It's not difficult to remove it, a patch has already been accepted:
https://github.com/crpb/rspamd/commit/1bfa26296e65514c00e18f856ef3297e7fefdd1c
And it might not have gone for good.
I have commented it out
THX
--
Med venlig hilsen
>> [ Repost from "mailop" list ]
>>
>> Just FYI for those with the nixspam RBL configured in their systems (For
>> example it's enabled in rspamd by default)
>
> Is it safe to assume that it will go away by itself during a future upgrade
> of rspa
On 18 January 2025 07:42:54 CET, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
>[ Repost from "mailop" list ]
>
>Just FYI for those with the nixspam RBL configured in their systems (For
>example it's enabled in rspamd by default)
Is it safe to assume that it will go awa
[ Repost from "mailop" list ]
Just FYI for those with the nixspam RBL configured in their systems (For
example it's enabled in rspamd by default)
It's just shutdown - https://www.nixspam.net/?old_domain=true
Sad to see as it was always quite reliable as a signal of spammin
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
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-15 11:29:
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service erro
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?
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/2607%3Af8b0%3A4864%3A20%3A%3A930.html
dnsbl must be reversed, not any news there
and note valli.
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0
Hi all,
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service error for
name=0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net
type=A: Host not found, try
On 2024-04-11 at 05:10:45 UTC-0400 (Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:10:45 +0200)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
>> Στις 11/4/24 10:59, ο/η Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users έγραψε:
>>> It still works, but you may need supplementary software as amavis, sagator,
>>> s
r 2024 17:46:36 +0800)
Mr. Peng via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
antispam.
But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by
RBL.
Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a practical
Στις 11/4/24 10:59, ο/η Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users έγραψε:
It still works, but you may need supplementary software as amavis,
sagator, spamass-milter or mimedefang because SpamAssassin only
focuses on classification, not about delivery.
On 11.04.24 11:54, Dimitris via Postfix-use
Στις 11/4/24 10:59, ο/η Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users έγραψε:
It still works, but you may need supplementary software as amavis,
sagator, spamass-milter or mimedefang because SpamAssassin only focuses
on classification, not about delivery.
iirc, you also need a compiler installe
, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
> antispam.
> But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
> Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a practical system?
Those are three of the best, but you have to understand that they are
complicated and may
17:46:36 +0800)
> Mr. Peng via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
> > antispam.
> > But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
> > Do you think the three RB
On 10.04.24 17:46, Mr. Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
antispam.
But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a practical system?
On 10/04/24 22:50
On 10/04/24 22:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 10.04.24 17:46, Mr. Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
antispam.
But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
Do you think the three
Dnia 10.04.2024 o godz. 10:22:52 Bill Cole via Postfix-users pisze:
> I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
> antispam.
> But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
> Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a prac
Dnia 10.04.2024 o godz. 10:22:52 Bill Cole via Postfix-users pisze:
> > I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
> > antispam.
> > But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
> > Do you think the three RBL above are
On 2024-04-10 at 05:46:36 UTC-0400 (Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:46:36 +0800)
Mr. Peng via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
> antispam.
> But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
> Do y
On 10.04.24 17:46, Mr. Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
antispam.
But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a practical system?
I use them on many
It is kind of off topic, but to my opinion there is no FP-less RBL available.
Consider moving to scoring system to not rely on listing at only one blocklist.
--
Send unsolicited bulk email to carl...@at.encryp.ch
___
Postfix-users mailing list
I have been using spamhaus, spamcop, sorbs as the RBL providers for
antispam.
But some of the customers speak to me about the FP issues caused by RBL.
Do you think the three RBL above are reliable in a practical system?
Thanks
___
Postfix-users mailing
On 2024-02-27 at 16:39:54 UTC-0500 (Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:39:54 -0800
(PST))
lists--- via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org
website. Is that a deprecated parameter?
The names of Postfix map files are up to you. Their usag
Wietse:
> Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with
> check_CLIENT_access.
lists--- via Postfix-users:
> Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks?
What do you want to not block: the sender email domain? Then
use check_sender_access (note that is check_sender_
Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks?
It looks like sender_access with an OK since it acts on the FROK field.
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org website. Is
that a deprecated parameter?
Feb 27, 2024
Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with
check_CLIENT_access.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
I still have that problem with the sender that used a spammy microsoft
server that gets rejected by IP for using spamcop. I put the domain in
the client_checks file but the sender gets bounced.
postconf mail_version
mail_version = 3.8.1
compatibility_level = 2
The client_checks line was added
That should work. Thanks
https://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
Feb 24, 2024 8:05:00 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
:
>>> On 24.02.24 00:49, lists--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have set up rbl_override for the sender's domain.
> [...]
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>> [..
On 24.02.24 07:43, lists--- via Postfix-users wrote:
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=15
I get your point but this is for a different blocking list. That is
spamcop and spamassassin have different blocking lists.
you can still use postscreen which supports multiple weighed block/allow
lists,
On 24.02.24 00:49, lists--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have set up rbl_override for the sender's domain.
[...]
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
[...]
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/rbl_override,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
Feb 24, 2024 6:
On 2024-02-24 at 10:43:36 UTC-0500 (Sat, 24 Feb 2024 07:43:36 -0800
(PST))
lists--- via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=15
I get your point but this is for a different blocking list. That is
spamcop and spamassassin have different blocking lists.
What
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=15
I get your point but this is for a different blocking list. That is spamcop and
spamassassin have different blocking lists.
What I really need is a way to make the rbl_override work for the domain name
that has been related.
I am going to review my logs and se
lists--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-02-24 09:49:
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/client_checks,
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks,
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/rbl_override,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
check_policy_service unix:private/polic
e; Client host [40.107.93.98] blocked
>> using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
>> https://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?40.107.93.98'
>
>> This is the relevant part of my postfix main.cf. I am only showing the
>> spamcop rbl.
>
>
>> smtpd_recipient_restricti
elevant part of my postfix main.cf. I am only showing the
spamcop rbl.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
[...]
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/rbl_override,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
What's in /etc/postfix/rbl_override ?
It o
18:28:39
MYDOMAIN postfix/anvil[12013]: statistics: max connection rate 1/60s
for (smtp:40.107.93.98) at Feb 22 18:25:18
This is the relevant part of my postfix main.cf. I am only showing the
spamcop rbl.
smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous
smtpd_recipient_rest
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver, another is
running systemd-resolve.
[..]
Checking for RBL on first node is successful:
[..]
But second is not:
[..]
Can you tell me why?
unbound will, per default
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:22:24AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > My comiserations...
>
> Do you mean systemd-resolve is a bad choice for local resolver?
Wow, you read my mind! :-)
The only use-case I can think of for systemd-resolved is on mobile
devices, or home networks, where au
On 2023-04-10 09:30, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:14:19AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users
wrote:
I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver,
Congratulations on a sound choice.
another is running systemd-resolve.
My comiserations.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:14:19AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver,
Congratulations on a sound choice.
> another is running systemd-resolve.
My comiserations...
--
Viktor.
___
0.0.0.0:*
268/systemd-resolve
Checking for RBL on first node is successful:
$ dig 17.39.33.194.zen.spamhaus.org +short
127.0.0.3
But second is not:
$ dig 17.39.33.194.zen.spamhaus.org
; <<>> DiG 9.16.1-Ubuntu <<>> 17.39.33.194.zen.spamhaus.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 02:48:48PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
> Thanks to all for the assistance. It now works properly. I never
> found reject_unlisted_recipient as it only exists on
> https://www.postfix.com/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html where it says it is
> on by default. The description above sh
On Nov 24, 2022, at 07:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>
> Doug:
>
> There's implicit reject_unlisted_recipient at the end of rules when
> smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=on (default).
>
> However when this one hits, DNS queries were already sent.
>
> t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
reject_unlisted_recipient, of course:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unlisted_recipient
reject_unlisted_recipient
Reject the request when the RCPT TO address is not listed in the list of
valid recipients for its domain class. See the
smtpd_reject
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> reject_unlisted_recipient, of course:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unlisted_recipient
>
> reject_unlisted_recipient
>Reject the request when the RCPT TO address is not listed in the list of
>valid recipients for its domain class. See the
>
Dnia 24.11.2022 o godz. 08:44:51 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
you should use reject_unverified_recipient instead of
reject_unverified_recipient, they have different use which is why
you get DNS lookups prior recipient being rejected.
On 24.11.22 11:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Hm... "reject_unver
Dnia 24.11.2022 o godz. 08:44:51 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
>
> you should use reject_unverified_recipient instead of
> reject_unverified_recipient, they have different use which is why
> you get DNS lookups prior recipient being rejected.
Hm... "reject_unverified_recipient instead of reject_u
f for smtpd:
>>
>>> smtpd pass - - n - 50 smtpd
>>> -o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=$incoming_smtpd_restrictions
>>
>>
>>> However, I seem to be doing the dns for all received emails. I see the log
>>> messa
eceived emails. I see the log
>> message for user User unknown in virtual alias table, and dns requests with
>> that same timestamp for spamcop, barracudacentral and spamhaus. I am
>> suspecting I am missing a reject statement that will reject the email when
>> the u
virtual alias table, and dns requests
with that same timestamp for spamcop, barracudacentral and spamhaus. I am
suspecting I am missing a reject statement that will reject the email when
the user is not in the virtual alias table that needs to be before the rbl
rejects. I thought that
t statement that will reject the email when
> the user is not in the virtual alias table that needs to be before the rbl
> rejects. I thought that reject_unverified_recipient would do that, but
> apparently not.'
> -- Doug
Never heard of the parameter "incoming_smtpd_restrictions"
Is that really what you have in main.cf
--
Cheers,
Phil
hat same timestamp for spamcop, barracudacentral and spamhaus. I am
suspecting I am missing a reject statement that will reject the email when the
user is not in the virtual alias table that needs to be before the rbl rejects.
I thought that reject_unverified_recipient would do that, but apparently not.'
-- Doug
On 2022-11-23 at 04:58:09 UTC-0500 (Wed, 23 Nov 2022 01:58:09 -0800)
Doug Hardie
is rumored to have said:
I originally had incoming_smtpd_restrictions set to:
reject_unverified_recipient
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net,
reject_r
On 23.11.22 01:58, Doug Hardie wrote:
I originally had incoming_smtpd_restrictions set to:
reject_unverified_recipient
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
permit
Later I added postscreen and co
I originally had incoming_smtpd_restrictions set to:
reject_unverified_recipient
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
permit
Later I added postscreen and commented out the reject_rbl_... entr
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 06:12:17PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> in smtpd_client_restrictions you don't know anything about senders or
> recipients.
This is not the case with the default setting of
smtpd_delay_restrictions = yes
--
Viktor.
/allowlists at postscreen level, that way
you can use weighed scoring and require some minimal score.
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
But I saw others use these forms:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
[...]
So my question is which directive to put rbl settings in
My another question is, for the last statement "permit", is is needed or not?
Not needed. Mail is accepted unless explicitly rejected.
,
permit
My another question is, for the last statement "permit", is is needed or not?
Thanks.
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 14:21 Uhr
Von: "Viktor Dukhovni"
An: "Postfix users"
Betreff: Re: where to put RBL settings
> On 17 Nov 2022, a
> On 17 Nov 2022, at 8:21 pm, linux...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> So my question is which directive to put rbl settings in?
> "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" or "smtpd_client_restrictions"?
RBL lookups are "expensive" for both the RBL service and for your
MTA
So my question is which directive to put rbl settings in?
"smtpd_recipient_restrictions" or "smtpd_client_restrictions"?
Dealers choice. Both work, just depends when you want them rejected. If you
wait for recipient you can see in the logs who the mail was going to. If y
dear list,
Currently I have these rbl settings in main.cf:
smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
permit
Is
On 7/20/2021 3:31 PM, post...@ptld.com wrote:
Also meaning if a client passed reject_unknown_client_hostname then
it would be procedurally pointless to check both reject_rhsbl_client
and reject_rhsbl_reverse_client, right?
It's ALWAYS pointless to check both.
-- Noel Jones
On 07-20-2021 3:58 pm, Noel Jones wrote:
reject_rhsbl_reverse_client uses the client PTR regardless of FCrDNS
confirmation. These clients may be labeled as "unknown" in postfix
logs. If the client has no PTR at all, there is no hostname to check
and the query is skipped.
The hostname isn't verif
ostname based restrictions.
If that is the case, then wouldn't the client have already been
rejected under reject_unknown_client_hostname?
Only if you use reject_unknown_client_hostname and you've specified
that check before the rbl check.
Warning: reject_unknown_client_hostname a v
> But this is the hostname version reject_rhsbl_*, wouldn't it submit
> hostname and not an IP?
In that case it prepends a domain name (client hostname,
email address domain, depending on context).
Wietse
Postfix will perform each query.
If the query ends up being the exact same, it will be in your cache.
Oh yeah, i didn't think about that.
reject_rhsbl_reverse_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
Postfix queries the PTR hostname returned. For this query, it doesn't
matter if the client PTR and A recor
reject_rhsbl_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
reject_rhsbl_helo rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
How does postfix submit the query to the rbl_domain?
Prepend the reversed client IP address to the provider's domain
(without =d.d.d.d). See RFC5782 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL.
Postfix was implemented long b
post...@ptld.com:
> -
>
> reject_rhsbl_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
> reject_rhsbl_helo rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
>
> How does postfix submit the query to the rbl_domain?
Prepend the reversed client IP address to the provider's domain
(without =d.d.d.d). See RFC5782 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DN
example.com.rbl_domain? Or both or other?
Same for HELO hostname?
hostnames are submitted as host.example.com.rbl.example.com, as per
customary RBL operation.
-
When using both:
reject_rhsbl_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
reject_rhsbl_helo rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
If the PTR and HELO are the same hostname like
then reject_rhsbl_reverse_client would
never get used?
-
In the manual maps_rbl_reject_code references:
reject_rbl_client, reject_rhsbl_client, reject_rhsbl_reverse_client,
reject_rhsbl_sender and reject_rhsbl_recipient restrictions.
reject_rhsbl_helo is not listed. Does rbl reject
Thanks! With reject_unlisted_recipient it indeed works as desired!
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:45 AM Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Aleksei Shpakovskii:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to verify recipient address before hitting DNS RBL. But
> > it seems I'm unable to
Aleksei Shpakovskii:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to verify recipient address before hitting DNS RBL. But
> it seems I'm unable to do this. Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Using 32-bit Postfix 3.6.0-r0 from Alpine inside Docker container.
>
> My main.cf file looks
Hi,
I would like to verify recipient address before hitting DNS RBL. But
it seems I'm unable to do this. Am I doing something wrong?
Using 32-bit Postfix 3.6.0-r0 from Alpine inside Docker container.
My main.cf file looks like this:
# main.cf #
mydomain=example.net
compatibility_
Just FYI, GMail marked this mail as spam.
Demi
OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 16/10/2020 22:04, David Wells wrote:
I have a postfix-3.3.2 installation (installed from source on
slackware 14.2 from the slackbuilds package) that does rbl checks in
the smtpd_recipient_restrictions section. I have been seeing an
increasing amount of spam coming in so I added more
:
Why is there a "check_sender_access" *before*
"reject_unauth_destination", and before the RBL checks? Does the
"sender_access" table have anything other than REJECT rules?
> > reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
> > reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
David Wells:
> Hi!
>
> I have a postfix-3.3.2 installation (installed from source on slackware
> 14.2 from the slackbuilds package) that does rbl checks in the
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions section. I have been seeing an increasing
> amount of spam coming in so I added more
Hi!
I have a postfix-3.3.2 installation (installed from source on slackware
14.2 from the slackbuilds package) that does rbl checks in the
smtpd_recipient_restrictions section. I have been seeing an increasing
amount of spam coming in so I added more reject_rbl_client instances
listing more
On 06/10/2020 00:05, Wietse Venema wrote:
> John Fawcett:
>> Actually to be more precise: is it guaranteed to return not null and
>> with all the function pointers in the returned dict struct also not
>> null. I'm adding this because I think it does always return something
>> not null, but I'm not
John Fawcett:
> Actually to be more precise: is it guaranteed to return not null and
> with all the function pointers in the returned dict struct also not
> null. I'm adding this because I think it does always return something
> not null, but I'm not sure that the function pointers are always not
>
On 05/10/2020 23:18, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 05/10/2020 22:19, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Benny Pedersen:
>>> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip
>>> 7f78d9773cea sp 7ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in
>>> libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000]
>>> Oct 5 17:09:51 localh
John Fawcett:
> >> Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip
> >> 7f388bc98cea sp 7ffc372ca850 error 4 in
> >> libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000]
> >>
> >> both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo
> >>
> >> removed:
> >>
> >> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map =
On 05/10/2020 22:19, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Benny Pedersen:
>> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip
>> 7f78d9773cea sp 7ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in
>> libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000]
>> Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip
Benny Pedersen:
> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip
> 7f78d9773cea sp 7ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in
> libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000]
> Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip
> 7f372355dcea sp 7fff7569b520 error 4 i
Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip
7f78d9773cea sp 7ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in
libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000]
Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip
7f372355dcea sp 7fff7569b520 error 4 in
libpostfix-util.so[7f37
Dominic Raferd:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:47, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > Dominic Raferd:
> > > > When postscreen rejects an incoming email because it exceeds the
> > dnsbl/rbl
> > > > score, how does it decide which rbl t
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:47, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Dominic Raferd:
> > > When postscreen rejects an incoming email because it exceeds the
> dnsbl/rbl
> > > score, how does it decide which rbl to report back to client as the
> cause
>
Wietse Venema:
> Dominic Raferd:
> > When postscreen rejects an incoming email because it exceeds the dnsbl/rbl
> > score, how does it decide which rbl to report back to client as the cause
> > of the rejection - since it only reports one? Is it just the first one to
&
Dominic Raferd:
> When postscreen rejects an incoming email because it exceeds the dnsbl/rbl
> score, how does it decide which rbl to report back to client as the cause
> of the rejection - since it only reports one? Is it just the first one to
> respond? Or random?
It replies with th
On 25.01.20 08:44, Dominic Raferd wrote:
>When postscreen rejects an incoming email because it exceeds the dnsbl/rbl
>score, how does it decide which rbl to report back to client as the cause
>of the rejection - since it only reports one? Is it just the first one to
>respond? Or rando
1 - 100 of 657 matches
Mail list logo
