Re: message-id empty

On 05.02.20 04:25, mami64 wrote: >Some times i found in logs (smtp outgoing) empty message-id like > >Feb 5 12:20:18 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21270]: 48CJy70T20z3xcS: message-id=<> >Feb 5 12:20:20 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21265]: 48CJyD3tzNz3y0m: message-id=<> >Feb 5 12:20:20 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[19

Re: message-id empty

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:41 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 05.02.20 04:25, mami64 wrote: > >Some times i found in logs (smtp outgoing) empty message-id like > > > >Feb 5 12:20:18 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21270]: 48CJy70T20z3xcS: message-id=<> > >Feb 5 12:20:20 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21265]

Re: message-id empty

On 05.02.20 04:25, mami64 wrote: Some times i found in logs (smtp outgoing) empty message-id like Feb 5 12:20:18 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21270]: 48CJy70T20z3xcS: message-id=<> Feb 5 12:20:20 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[21265]: 48CJyD3tzNz3y0m: message-id=<> Feb 5 12:20:20 smtp1 postfix/cleanup[19334]

Re: message-id logging broken by utf8?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 16.57, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > >> On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Tom Sommer wrote: >> >> The message-id is not contained within <> in the log message but maybe that >> is correct, it just breaks logstash parsing but perhaps the parser is to >> blame. > > The "<"

Re: message-id logging broken by utf8?

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Tom Sommer wrote: > > The message-id is not contained within <> in the log message but maybe that > is correct, it just breaks logstash parsing but perhaps the parser is to > blame. The "<" and ">" characters are not added by Postfix, they are normally part o

Re: message-id logging broken by utf8?

The message-id is not contained within <> in the log message but maybe that is correct, it just breaks logstash parsing but perhaps the parser is to blame. -- Tom Sommer > On 14 Aug 2018, at 16.34, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 15:22, Tom Sommer wrote: >> I noticed

Re: message-id logging broken by utf8?

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Tom Sommer wrote: > > Aug 14 15:29:57 X postfix/cleanup[11962]: 41qYP05TZCz5xY9: > message-id==?utf-8?Q?=3CE1F7DC2C-82B5-4927-B0DB-0179227E665C=40aalborgf?=? > =?utf-8?Q?=C3=B8rstehj=C3=A6lp=2Edk=3E?= > > I guess the message-id contains non-ascii chars that b

Re: message-id logging broken by utf8?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 15:22, Tom Sommer wrote: > I noticed a mail that broke logging syntax: > > Aug 14 15:29:57 X postfix/cleanup[11962]: 41qYP05TZCz5xY9: > message-id==?utf-8?Q?=3CE1F7DC2C-82B5-4927-B0DB-0179227E665C=40aalborgf?=? > =?utf-8?Q?=C3=B8rstehj=C3=A6lp=2Edk=3E?= > > I guess the mess

Re: Message-ID

On 01/28/2018 12:04 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: On 2018-01-28 9:25, CP wrote: on 01/27/2018 09:30 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: With Message-ID header and dovecot lmtp (I think lda works also) you eliminate  (a lot!!) of these duplicates so try it if you have the same problem. In my case I have a robo

Re: Fwd: Re: Message-ID

On 01/28/2018 12:04 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: On 2018-01-28 9:25, CP wrote: on 01/27/2018 09:30 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: With Message-ID header and dovecot lmtp (I think lda works also) you eliminate  (a lot!!) of these duplicates so try it if you have the same problem. In my case I have a robo

Re: Fwd: Re: Message-ID

On 2018-01-28 9:25, CP wrote: > on 01/27/2018 09:30 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: > > With Message-ID header and dovecot lmtp (I think lda works also) you > eliminate  (a lot!!) of these duplicates so try it if you have the same > problem. > In my case I have a robot account which sends (from LAN)  e

Fwd: Re: Message-ID

on 01/27/2018 09:30 PM, Karol Augustin wrote: On 2018-01-27 17:24, CP wrote: On 01/27/2018 02:05 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also)

Re: Message-ID

On 2018-01-27 19:30, Karol Augustin wrote: > On 2018-01-27 17:24, CP wrote: >> On 01/27/2018 02:05 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: >> I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias >> expansion and I have seen that some (local generated

Re: Message-ID

On 2018-01-27 17:24, CP wrote: > On 01/27/2018 02:05 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: > I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias > expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also) > messages don't have the Mes

Re: Message-ID

On 01/27/2018 02:05 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also) messages don't have the Message-ID header . I should add that such duplicity s

Re: Message-ID

On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also) messages don't have the Message-ID header . I should add that such duplicity should not happen when using aliases. Also, it may happ

Re: Message-ID

On 01/27/2018 12:09 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also) messages don't have the Message-ID header . I'm reading in  in postconf that th

Re: Message-ID

On 27.01.18 11:16, CP wrote: I'm trying to eliminate a problem with duplicate emails in alias expansion and I have seen that some (local generated and SMTP also) messages don't have the Message-ID header . I'm reading in  in postconf that there is a configuration option  always_add_missing_head

Re: Message-ID: / In-Reply-To: ID continuity through mail servers

> On May 5, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Richard Sass wrote: > > For a simple example using Postfix and our application as the client sending > will the “Message-ID:” outbound from my application message be retained as > it passes through Postfix, unaltered arriving at the destination mailbox on > the same

Re: Message-ID: / In-Reply-To: ID continuity through mail servers

I suggest that you build on conventions that are valid across multiple mail software implementations, not just Postfix. Of particular interest are In-Reply-To: and References:. Search the web for "site:ietf.org references in-reply-to", and read the documents that come up, in particular RFC 2822 a

Re: Message-Id header missing

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:50:09 +0100, Benny Pedersen stated: > since no one have crystall > balls here Funny ... I think you meant, "Has a crystal ball here." -- Jerry

Re: Message-Id header missing

Am 14.02.2015 um 01:50 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 13. feb. 2015 16.23.55 Gianluca Gargiulo wrote: can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present? to get a better help, postconf -n is needed, since no one have crystall balls here WTF would anybody need "postconf -n" out

Re: Message-Id header missing

On 13. feb. 2015 16.23.55 Gianluca Gargiulo wrote: can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present? is it possible to post to maillists without html ? to get a better help, postconf -n is needed, since no one have crystall balls here

Re: Message-Id header missing

distruggere l’intera e-mail. - Messaggio originale - Da: "Wietse Venema" A: "Postfix users" Inviato: Venerdì, 13 febbraio 2015 16:49:57 Oggetto: Re: Message-Id header missing Gianluca Gargiulo: > > Hi, > > can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id

Re: Message-Id header missing

Gianluca Gargiulo: > > Hi, > > can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present? This header is not required by the Internet email standard, therefore Postfix does not add it by default. See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_add_missing_headers and links in tha

Re: Message-Id header missing

Am 13.02.2015 um 16:23 schrieb Gianluca Gargiulo: can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present? you need to adjust "local_header_rewrite_clients" to your environment local_header_rewrite_clients = permit_mynetworks always_add_missing_headers = yes

Re: message-id discarded on send?

Awesome! That was it. I assumed my PERL library was doing the <> for me. I'm hearing the when you assume speech coming on. Thank you!! On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Noel Jones wrote: > On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > If I submit a message with the following message-id to the po

Re: message-id discarded on send?

On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > If I submit a message with the following message-id to the postfix > sendmail interface using */usr/sbin/sendmail -r...@here.com > -t -oi -oem* > Message-Id: *58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com >

Re: Message id not encircled with '<' and '>'. Bug in postfix logs?

Thanks for the answer. Things are clearer now. message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99 This is a bug? Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are more equal than others.

Re: Message id not encircled with '<' and '>'. Bug in postfix logs?

Javier Amor Garcia: > mail.log.2:41222:Mar 24 12:49:45 kif postfix/cleanup[808]: EFA813D790: > message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99 > > This is a bug? The system that created the Message-ID header does not comply with the Internet email RFCs (RFC 5322 in this case). If you were expecting

Re: Message id not encircled with '<' and '>'. Bug in postfix logs?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:34:46PM +0200, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: >> Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are >> more equal than others. > > So it is a case of "shit in, shit out"?? Postfix logs the content of the Message-Id header as received. To determine whether

Re: Message id not encircled with '<' and '>'. Bug in postfix logs?

Zitat von Victor Duchovni : On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Javier Amor Garcia wrote: Hello, in my mail.log I have lines where the message-id is not encircled with '<' and '>'. This has broke my parsing scripts. It seems that it only happens in the cleanup process. The messages-id

Re: Message id not encircled with '<' and '>'. Bug in postfix logs?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Javier Amor Garcia wrote: > Hello, > in my mail.log I have lines where the message-id is not encircled with '<' > and '>'. This has broke my parsing scripts. > > It seems that it only happens in the cleanup process. The messages-id > hadn't domain porti

Re: message id is a unique number?

Victor Duchovni: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:05:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Postfix uses the inode number in the name, because the name needs > > to be unique across the incoming, active, and deferred directories. > > > > Postfix could lengthen the time before reuse, by including more

Re: message id is a unique number?

Victor Duchovni wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:05:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: Postfix uses the inode number in the name, because the name needs to be unique across the incoming, active, and deferred directories. Postfix could lengthen the time before reuse, by including more time infor

Re: message id is a unique number?

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:05:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Postfix uses the inode number in the name, because the name needs > to be unique across the incoming, active, and deferred directories. > > Postfix could lengthen the time before reuse, by including more > time information (four hex

Re: message id is a unique number?

Murray S. Kucherawy: > For what it's worth, sendmail's implementation encodes the current > time down to the second plus the pid of the handling process in > its queue IDs. A collision then could only happen if the same > pid got re-used twice in the same second. It doesn't include the > inode or

RE: message id is a unique number?

For what it's worth, sendmail's implementation encodes the current time down to the second plus the pid of the handling process in its queue IDs. A collision then could only happen if the same pid got re-used twice in the same second. It doesn't include the inode or any random data. Details:

Re: message id is a unique number?

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:56:50PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Perhaps it is time to replace the time-in-microseconds portion of > the queue ID by a sufficient number of random bits. I would not replace the microsecond time, its monotonicity has useful properties. Rather, we could augment the

Re: message id is a unique number?

Victor Duchovni: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:17:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Correct. With current Postfix implementations, there are two "marker" > > records that you can use: > > > > - The "postfix/qmgr removed" record that says the file is deleted. > > This record was introdu

Re: message id is a unique number?

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:17:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Correct. With current Postfix implementations, there are two "marker" > records that you can use: > > - The "postfix/qmgr removed" record that says the file is deleted. > This record was introduced with Postfix version 2.1. >

Re: message id is a unique number?

Noel Jones: > On 3/9/2011 10:26 AM, Mauro wrote: > > On 9 March 2011 16:19, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> [root@mail:~]$ cat maillog | grep -i sasl | grep reindl | tail -n 2 > >> Mar 9 15:00:22 mail postfix/smtpd[7582]: 0BA7FE9: > >> client=rh.thelounge.net[10.0.0.99], sasl_method=PLAIN, > >> sasl_u

Re: message id is a unique number?

On 3/9/2011 10:26 AM, Mauro wrote: On 9 March 2011 16:19, Reindl Harald wrote: [root@mail:~]$ cat maillog | grep -i sasl | grep reindl | tail -n 2 Mar 9 15:00:22 mail postfix/smtpd[7582]: 0BA7FE9: client=rh.thelounge.net[10.0.0.99], sasl_method=PLAIN, sasl_username=h.rei...@thelounge.net Mar

Re: message id is a unique number?

On 9 March 2011 16:19, Reindl Harald wrote: > [root@mail:~]$ cat maillog | grep -i sasl | grep reindl | tail -n 2 > Mar  9 15:00:22 mail postfix/smtpd[7582]: 0BA7FE9: > client=rh.thelounge.net[10.0.0.99], sasl_method=PLAIN, > sasl_username=h.rei...@thelounge.net > Mar  9 16:23:45 mail postfix/smt

Re: message id is a unique number?

[root@mail:~]$ cat maillog | grep -i sasl | grep reindl | tail -n 2 Mar 9 15:00:22 mail postfix/smtpd[7582]: 0BA7FE9: client=rh.thelounge.net[10.0.0.99], sasl_method=PLAIN, sasl_username=h.rei...@thelounge.net Mar 9 16:23:45 mail postfix/smtpd[8877]: 614CEE8: client=rh.thelounge.net[10.0.0.99],

Re: message id is a unique number?

On 9 March 2011 15:46, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > * Mauro : >> On 9 March 2011 14:04, Noel Jones wrote: >> > On 3/9/2011 6:57 AM, Mauro wrote: >> >> >> >> I my logs I have: >> >> >> >> >> >> Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: >> >> from=<..> >> >> >> >> That

Re: message id is a unique number?

* Mauro : > On 9 March 2011 14:04, Noel Jones wrote: > > On 3/9/2011 6:57 AM, Mauro wrote: > >> > >> I my logs I have: > >> > >> > >> Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: > >> from=<..> > >> > >> That number BF683A28247 is a unique number? > > > > The postfix queu

Re: message id is a unique number?

On 9 March 2011 14:04, Noel Jones wrote: > On 3/9/2011 6:57 AM, Mauro wrote: >> >> I my logs I have: >> >> >> Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: >> from=<..> >> >> That number BF683A28247 is a unique number? > > The postfix queueid identifies a single message wh

Re: message id is a unique number?

On 3/9/2011 6:57 AM, Mauro wrote: I my logs I have: Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: from=<..> That number BF683A28247 is a unique number? The postfix queueid identifies a single message while it's in the queue. The queueid is created from the queue fi

Re: message id is a unique number?

Am 09.03.2011 13:57, schrieb Mauro: > I my logs I have: > > > Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: > from=<..> > That number BF683A28247 is a unique number? yes for this messages with "cat /var/log/maillog | grep BF683A28247"you get all lines from this messag

Re: message id is a unique number?

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:57:26 + Mauro wrote: > I my logs I have: > > > Feb 13 06:27:57 mail1-xen postfix/qmgr[8336]: BF683A28247: > from=<..> > > That number BF683A28247 is a unique number? Yes and no. It is unique in a timespan. If you use logrotate(8) it is probably unique for

Re: Message-id logging (include rfc822-comments?)

Victor Duchovni: > > > > How would one decide that a (message-id) header is not mangled? > > > > This would require parsing the string, counting the "address" > > > > tokens, and if there is only one "address" token, use that as the > > > > logged message ID, otherwise log the entire original strin

Re: Message-id logging (include rfc822-comments?)

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 04:16:02PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Victor Duchovni: > > > > On the other hand, for well-formed headers, the > > > > comment is not part of the message-id: for example: > > > > > > > > 2008-11-06T01:11:19-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[13756]: > > > > AE620EF8001:

Re: Message-id logging (include rfc822-comments?)

Victor Duchovni: > > > On the other hand, for well-formed headers, the > > > comment is not part of the message-id: for example: > > > > > > 2008-11-06T01:11:19-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[13756]: AE620EF8001: > > > message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added by [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > >

Re: Message-id logging (include rfc822-comments?)

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 04:38:41PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (test) > > > > 2008-11-06T13:13:35-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[10832]: AF24675A3D: > > message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (test) > > > > postfix logs both the "id" and the "comment". T

Re: Message-id logging (include rfc822-comments?)

Victor Duchovni: > > When a message-id is followed by rfc822 comment text: > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (test) > > 2008-11-06T13:13:35-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[10832]: AF24675A3D: >message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (test) > > postfix logs both the "id" and the "commen