-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von Wietse Venema
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 20:39
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Change default reject message
rud...@padaru.de:
> Since Postfix rewrites all alias email addresses to the local us
rud...@padaru.de:
> Since Postfix rewrites all alias email addresses to the local users, this
> works perfectly.
Postfix calls Dovecot quota before Postfix aliases the recipient
to a local user. How does Dovecot know what mailbox Postfix is
asking about?
Wietse
rud...@padaru.de:
> Thank you for that explanaition, i appreciate that.
>
> So i need a quota check, before dovecot touch the mail, so that the
> mail-client cant deliver the mail to postfix if that quota check isnt
> succesfully.
>
> Something like that i have forced, as i explored postfix work
Auftrag von rud...@padaru.de
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 20:19
An: 'Postfix users'
Betreff: AW: Change default reject message
Thank you for that explanaition, i appreciate that.
So i need a quota check, before dovecot touch the mail, so that the
mail-client cant deliver the mail to po
Betreff: Re: AW: Change default reject message
rud...@padaru.de:
> Is it possible to check the quota status from the receiver in the
> pickup module with a sql query or something else to get the same
> behavior as when the mail passes the smtpd module?
There currenly is no such feaure, bu
det: Freitag, 23. April 2021 19:59
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 1:33 PM, wrote:
>
> Is it possible to check the quota status from the receiver in the
> pickup module with a sql query or something else to get the same
> beha
rud...@padaru.de:
> Is it possible to check the quota status from the receiver in the pickup
> module with a sql query or something else to get the same behavior as when
> the mail passes the smtpd module?
There currenly is no such feaure, but I think that one could be
added in Postfix 3.6.
How d
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 1:33 PM, wrote:
>
> Is it possible to check the quota status from the receiver in the pickup
> module with a sql query or something else to get the same behavior as when
> the mail passes the smtpd module?
No, pickup(8) needs to enqueue the message, it can then be bounced
Yours sincerely
Pascal Rudolf
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von Wietse Venema
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 17:24
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:10 AM,
Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. The reason is that email should not be lost when Postfix
> > is down (system is booting up, or Postfix is down for maintenance).
> >
> > We could certainly add a policy callout for local submission. But
> > t
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Indeed. The reason is that email should not be lost when Postfix
> is down (system is booting up, or Postfix is down for maintenance).
>
> We could certainly add a policy callout for local submission. But
> that is too much change for Post
Wietse:
> So this needs a quota check before Postfix expands aliases and other address
> mappings.
>
> How does the Postfix SMTP server find out that a user is over quota?
> Does it use check_policy_service, or does it use a transport map that
> returns something like "error:user is over quota"?
üßen
Yours sincerely
Pascal Rudolf
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von Jaroslaw Rafa
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 11:28
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
Dnia 23.04.2021 o godz. 09:36:50 rud...@padar
Dnia 23.04.2021 o godz. 09:36:50 rud...@padaru.de pisze:
> I agree with you, i dont want produce late bounces. And thats my problem.
>
> For mails, who handeld by the smtpd ist works fine. But local Mails bypass
> the smtpd module, so also the smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
But the local mails com
Dnia 23.04.2021 o godz. 08:32:06 rud...@padaru.de pisze:
>
> But postfix dont use these recipient_restrictions because the local mails
> dont pass the smtpd.
Is there something that can check the quota and runs as a milter and not a
policy service?
Because you could use such a thing in non_smtpd_
7 772 595 32
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von @lbutlr
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 09:24
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
On 22 Apr 2021, at 12:49, Wietse Venema wrote:
> rud...@padaru.de:
>> Good eveni
ota bevore it accept the local mail?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Yours sincerely
Pascal Rudolf
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von @lbutlr
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 09:24
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
On 22 Ap
On 22 Apr 2021, at 12:49, Wietse Venema wrote:
> rud...@padaru.de:
>> Good evening,
>> Unfortunately, I have to revisit my topic from back in the day
>>
>> Sending the proper reject-messages through the postfix works wonderfully, as
>> long as it is an external sender.
>>
>> But now if a lo
reject message
rud...@padaru.de:
> In the message from the dovecot the @ is written,
> this information is of no use to the sender, because he does not know
> the local user name of the receiver.
>
> The bounce mail must therefore contain the e-mail address that the
> sender
rud...@padaru.de:
> In the message from the dovecot the @ is written, this
> information is of no use to the sender, because he does not know the local
> user name of the receiver.
>
> The bounce mail must therefore contain the e-mail address that the sender
> has addressed, the virtual address so
Grüßen
Yours sincerely
Pascal Rudolf
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von Wietse Venema
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. April 2021 20:50
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: AW: Change default reject message
rud...@padaru.de:
> Good even
rud...@padaru.de:
> Good evening,
> Unfortunately, I have to revisit my topic from back in the day
>
> Sending the proper reject-messages through the postfix works wonderfully, as
> long as it is an external sender.
>
> But now if a local sender sends an email to the full mailbox, again the
cal Rudolf
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von rud...@padaru.de
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2021 13:58
An: 'Postfix users'
Betreff: AW: Change default reject message
Hey,
oh sry, i firmly assumed that the postfix creates the message 😐
T
-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im
Auftrag von Wietse Venema
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2021 16:19
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: Change default reject message
rud...@padaru.de:
> i have an question about postfix reject message:
>
> Plan it to integrate an mail quota via do
rud...@padaru.de:
> i have an question about postfix reject message:
>
> Plan it to integrate an mail quota via dovecot. If the target mailbox is
> full, so my mailsystem answer with:
>
> Your message to was automatically discarded:
That is NOT a Postfix reject message. If y
Hey,
i have an question about postfix reject message:
Plan it to integrate an mail quota via dovecot. If the target mailbox is
full, so my mailsystem answer with:
Your message to was automatically discarded:
The original mail goes to mym...@mydomain.com postfix adress rewriting mail
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 1:59:33 PM AEDT Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> On 10/9/20 9:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >> What are the semantics of a From: header with multiple addresses?
> >
> > The message purports to be the work of multiple authors. Such a message
> > is required to have a "Sender
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:46:22PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Actually, Outlook does exactly that, and other MUAs would have come on
> > board if there was good cause to do that. At this point however, nobody
> > is investing much many in MUA development. All the $$$ are going into
> > wa
On 10/9/20 11:06 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 10:59:33PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
>> I love DKIM, but it should have been on the Sender header and not
>> the From header. However, for that to work, MUAs would have had to
>> display something like "f...@example.com c
I am also the family genealogist and just moved to Gramps from FTM.
I am not sure what "multiple from addresses" actually means. It is not
possible for an email to come from more than one email address at a time
in reality.
Of course, as you already know, the sending e-mail system can put
what
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 10:59:33PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> I love DKIM, but it should have been on the Sender header and not
> the From header. However, for that to work, MUAs would have had to
> display something like "f...@example.com claims that this message
> is from f...@example.com
On 10/9/20 9:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> What are the semantics of a From: header with multiple addresses?
> The message purports to be the work of multiple authors. Such a message
> is required to have a "Sender" header, but in most cases that constraint
> is unlikely to be enforced.
I love
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:28:58PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Multiple addresses in one From: header are allowed by the RFC 5322 spec.
> > Multiple From: headers in a message are not OK.
>
> What are the semantics of a From: header with multiple addresses?
The message purports to be the w
On 10/9/20 8:45 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ron Wheeler:
>> I am also the family genealogist and just moved to Gramps from FTM.
>>
>> I am not sure what "multiple from addresses" actually means. It is not
>> possible for an email to come from more than one email address at a time
>> in reality.
>
Ron Wheeler:
> I am also the family genealogist and just moved to Gramps from FTM.
>
> I am not sure what "multiple from addresses" actually means. It is not
> possible for an email to come from more than one email address at a time
> in reality.
Multiple addresses in one From: header are allow
Thanks a lot Ron,
I probably didn't explain myself well.
The contact form was fixed before posting this topic here, but I'm
currently managing a personal server where I host family websites
among many other services and also a Postfix setup where I handle
about 8 different domains. As you said, I
You need to fix your contact form.
There is no such thing as multiple from addresses.
As Tom said, your contact form is not creating an email. It is
collecting information that it processes to produce some intelligent
response or that it
sends to you (or an automated proxy) requesting that you (
On 9 Oct 2020, at 8:09, Ron Wheeler wrote:
That information that the user supplies should not be in the headers
at all in any message that you get. It is just data.
As Tom pointed out, the email to you or to the address entered on the
form should be from your website not from e-mail addresses p
Thanks a lot for you comments, opinion and help! :)
As Tom said, before posting this question here, I already noticed the
logic behaviour handling the contact form was wrong because emails
should never be sent on behalf of someone else. When I developed that
website, it's my dad's website, I did i
On 07-10-2020 02:27, Pau Peris wrote:
I'm hosting my dad's webpage which has a contact form (which should be
improved to avoid spam and/or bots) and from time to time someone
types multiple email addresses in the from field of the form so
contact emails with multiple from addresses like "from:
h.
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:35:39PM +, Pau Peris wrote:
> Could you explain to me which would be the benefits of implementing
> such behaviour on a filter or milter instead of doing it on
> header_checks?
As I wrote upthread, and you quoted in your message:
> > RFC5322.From syntax is rather n
Hi Viktor,
thanks a lot for your opinion.
Could you explain to me which would be the benefits of implementing
such behaviour on a filter or milter instead of doing it on
header_checks?
Also, do you know in which cases would be useful to allow or make use
of multiple From addresses? Just in case
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:27:09AM +, Pau Peris wrote:
> I'm hosting my dad's webpage which has a contact form (which should be
> improved to avoid spam and/or bots) and from time to time someone
> types multiple email addresses in the from field of the form so
> contact emails with multiple f
I'm hosting my dad's webpage which has a contact form (which should be
improved to avoid spam and/or bots) and from time to time someone
types multiple email addresses in the from field of the form so
contact emails with multiple from addresses like "from:
h...@example.com, f...@example.net" are ge
On 10/6/2020 6:52 PM, Pau Peris wrote:
Hi,
is there a sender restriction to reject a message with multiple from
addresses? Which would be?
Thanks,
If you're seeing multiple addresses in a single From: header you may
be able to carefully craft a header_checks to detect them, but
detecti
Hi,
is there a sender restriction to reject a message with multiple from
addresses? Which would be?
Thanks,
--
Pau
Aquest correu electrònic conté informació de caràcter confidencial
dirigida exclusivament al seu/s destinatari/s en còpia present. Tant
mateix, queda prohibida la seva divulgació,
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote:
Figured it out.
Turns out with a virtual domain, you still need to point it somwhere, and
the reject map needs to match the RIGHT HAND SIDE of that map, not the
left.
In my case, I pointed it at webmaster@localhost, and updated the
recipient_m
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Koga Hayashi wrote:
Dan,
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org On
Behalf Of Dan Mahoney (Gushi)
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:29 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Custom reject message for one address?
Hey there all,
At the
Dan,
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org On
> Behalf Of Dan Mahoney (Gushi)
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 10:29 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Custom reject message for one address?
>
> Hey there all,
>
> At th
Hey there all,
At the dayjob, we're getting enough spam to webmaster@ that we've decided
to reroute it to a different address.
We'd like to have the bounce messgge let people know about this address.
We don't want to send them another message, but we'd like their bounce
message to give them
user with invalid mail from domain with
> >
> > : Sender address rejected: not owned by user abc; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.0.173]>
> >
> > How can i customize this reject message?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Stefan
>
;
> using
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch
> smtpd_sender_login_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/login_maps
>
> rejects user with invalid mail from domain with
>
> : Sender address rejected: not owned by user abc; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.0.17
can i customize this reject message?
Thank you.
Stefan
deoren:
> The question I had would have been better phrased as, "Is there a way to
> limit which clients can claim to be from your domain(s) when sending mail?"
>
> After doing some additional digging it looks like "Envelope sender
> address authorization" is what I'm looking for?
>
> http://www.
On 11/22/2014 6:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> deoren:
>> Is there a way to accomplish what the Linux Email book mentions?
>> Basically restricting use of your domain to your clients/backup
>> MX and using a custom response or log message to indicate what
>> rule blocked offenders?
>
> /etc/postfix
deoren:
> Is there a way to accomplish what the Linux Email book mentions?
> Basically restricting use of your domain to your clients/backup
> MX and using a custom response or log message to indicate what
> rule blocked offenders?
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
perm
On November 22, 2014 10:22:12 AM CST, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
>deoren:
>> permit_mynetworks, REJECT Unauthorized use of domain name
>
>Where does the Postfix documentation promise that you can do this?
>
> Wietse
Thanks for the reply. I know you are a busy guy and I appreciate the dire
deoren:
> permit_mynetworks, REJECT Unauthorized use of domain name
Where does the Postfix documentation promise that you can do this?
Wietse
I was reading through "Linux Email" and it has an example policy where only
clients from "your" networks are allowed to use "your" domain in the sender
address:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access
# /etc/postfix/sender_access
example.com permit_mynetw
Stephen Satchell:
> That said, if you don't want to expose the reason for the rejection,
> PostFix gives you that ability, although not necessarily the way that
> you want it. The way to do that is to write a policy filter that will
> detect the problems, and return status to PostFix to say "rejec
Am 05.10.2014 um 15:36 schrieb Stephen Satchell:
> My own analysis
> of some of the spam-sending software is that they don't have any
> significant form of logging
Ack, in most cases its fire and forget, i guess the only major problem
of a bot spammer is the danger loosing a lot of botsbut tha
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 05-10-2014 13:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Can you show quantitative evidence that this would actually make a
> measurable difference in the volume of unwanted email, or is this
> just about warm fuzzy feelings? There are better ways to achieve
> the latter than tweaking an email delivery system.
Am 05.10.2014 um 14:40 schrieb Henrik Larsson:
On 05-10-2014 13:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
Can you show quantitative evidence that this would actually make a
measurable difference in the volume of unwanted email, or is this
just about warm fuzzy feelings? There are better ways to achieve
the latt
On 05-10-2014 13:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
Can you show quantitative evidence that this would actually make a
measurable difference in the volume of unwanted email, or is this
just about warm fuzzy feelings? There are better ways to achieve
the latter than tweaking an email delivery system. Throw
Henrik Larsson:
> On 03-10-2014 23:27, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Henrik Larsson wrote:
> >
> >> If you reject a message in helo, sender or recipient restrictions, the
> >> specific restriction is shown in the reject messa
On 03-10-2014 23:27, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Henrik Larsson wrote:
If you reject a message in helo, sender or recipient restrictions, the
specific restriction is shown in the reject message as shown below:
554 5.7.1 : Helo command rejected: Rejected
554
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +0200, Henrik Larsson wrote:
> If you reject a message in helo, sender or recipient restrictions, the
> specific restriction is shown in the reject message as shown below:
> 554 5.7.1 : Helo command rejected: Rejected
> 554 5.7.1 : Sender addr
If you reject a message in helo, sender or recipient restrictions, the
specific restriction is shown in the reject message as shown below:
554 5.7.1 : Helo command rejected: Rejected
554 5.7.1 : Sender address rejected: Rejected
554 5.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: Rejected
Is it possible to
Hi Jan,
Thanks for the reply. I don't want to use file as it'll be hard for me to
sync the same file across multiple servers. (Well, I could use nfs etc but
I don't want to).
As Tom suggested, it seems like the good way of doing it. Thanks for that.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jan P. Kessle
3. I could also write a policy server. Is there already a policy
server that's as simple as blocking IPs based on a ACL. But then, I'll
have to run a local mysql server also.
postfwd has an option to use a table, which will be re-read on every
request. Look for "lfile" or "ltable" at
http:/
ant to start rejecting connects with a REJECT message that
> can be different for different IPs. One way I could do is using "access"
> file and adding IPs to it. Unfortunately, it will work for a single
> server but not for a cluster of outbound servers.
>
> Questions:
>
undesirable as if sometimes this IP is a NAT server's IP for a org, there
are cases where SMTP packets from all clients of that org get dropped and
they have no clue what so ever.
For now, I want to start rejecting connects with a REJECT message that can
be different for different IPs. One way I
Jesper Fruergaard Andersen a écrit :
> I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
> using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts gets
> rejected wit
On 5/28/2010 7:49 AM, Jesper Fruergaard Andersen wrote:
> I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
> using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts
I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts gets
rejected with messages from policyd-weight and not with use
>You are NOT 'rejecting', you are ACCEPTING, then BOUNCING, which you
>should never do if you can possibly help it. Reject it at smtp time.
>
>Why waste system resources scanning messages you will later bounce?
I understand your point. Thank you for correcting my syntax. FWIW, this
will only ha
On 11/30/2009, techlist06 (techlis...@msws.org) wrote:
> So, if they click on "reply" in their client, the reply message should be
> sent to maillist_nore...@mydomain.com. My end accepts it (through spam
> filters), but then rejects the address with my custom reject message
e reply message should be
sent to maillist_nore...@mydomain.com. My end accepts it (through spam
filters), but then rejects the address with my custom reject message via my
new access table with:
maillist_nore...@mydomain.com 550 Do not reply to this address, instead do
this.
I did not add all
On 11/30/2009 3:52 PM, techlist06 wrote:
So, lemme get this straight. You changed the list address, but instead
of just sending an email to the list addresses telling all users of the
list address change, you just decided to, in essence, inform
them via an
NDR when they send mail to the list? T
>So, lemme get this straight. You changed the list address, but instead
>of just sending an email to the list addresses telling all users of the
>list address change, you just decided to, in essence, inform
>them via an
>NDR when they send mail to the list? There have got to be at
>least 1000
>
are trying to block all access to this email address, why
>> not just remove it from your list(s) of valid recipients? Did I miss
>> something earlier in the thread?
>
> I was wanting to give a specific reject message for a particular address.
> It's a small, manually mai
om your list(s) of valid recipients? Did I miss
>something earlier in the thread?
I was wanting to give a specific reject message for a particular address.
It's a small, manually maintained maillist. I don't want the subscribers to
reply to the "reply to" address, bu
techlist06 put forth on 11/30/2009 1:59 PM:
> I tried to setup an access map and reject a specific user. But the mails to
> that user are not rejected. I tried adding the access map in a few
> different places in the configuration, so far none worked. It shows up in
> the smtpd_recipient_restric
x.org] On Behalf Of techlist06
>Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:14 AM
>To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>Subject: Bounce a particular recipient address with specified
>reject message
>
>Greetings:
>
>I have what I expect is a simple question for you guys.
>Thanks to Ral
h my specific reject message.
Thanks,
Scott
postconf -n:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
daemon_directory = /usr/li
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, techlist06 wrote:
> I would like to setup postfix so it has a more friendly reject for
> mail sent to (via replys to my messages) "maill...@mydomain.com" with
> a particular reject message that instructs the user on what
> address(es) to use to better
ck to the sender with "not in virtual user
table" but I don't wan that bounce message for this particular case.
Instead, I would like to setup postfix so it has a more friendly reject for
mail sent to (via replys to my messages) "maill...@mydomain.com" with a
particular rej
88 matches
Mail list logo
