> Thinking at a complete tangent, have you tried the PostScreen
> pre-filter (built in to Postfix)?
thanks for the suggestion. i have now tried it. seems to stop the
garbage earlier, e.g. dnsbl rejection, but not much more effectively.
still getting 5+/hr through to my procmail. ghu knows for
On 08/11/2024 16:44, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
> fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so i assume it is my lack
> of clue. trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked spam
> on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
>
> milter_header_check
On 09-11-2024 19:08, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
I don't know aboud rspamd, but SpamAssassin may produce headers like:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
which would positively match the OP's regexp:
/^X-Spam.*YES/
i do not believe rspam
Robert L Mathews via Postfix-users wrote:
>> pcre is not in the debian postfix package :(
> It's available, but in a separate package named "postfix-pcre" that
> you can install:
> https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/postfix-pcre
w00t! thank you.
randy
On Nov 9, 2024, at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush via Postfix-users
wrote:
> pcre is not in the debian postfix package :(
It's available, but in a separate package named "postfix-pcre" that you can
install:
https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/postfix-pcre
--
Robert L Mathews
__
> If you also emply header checks
i don't. i checked because of the repeated "This feature is not
supported with smtp header/body checks."
> header_checks = regexp:{ {/^X-Spam(-Flag)?:[[:blank:]]*YES/ REJECT} }
> mime_header_checks =
> nested_header_
> I don't know aboud rspamd, but SpamAssassin may produce headers like:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
> which would positively match the OP's regexp:
> /^X-Spam.*YES/
i do not believe rspamd produces such. as always, i coul
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 10:25:27PM -0800, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
well, i have seen two `^X-Spam` markings
X-Spam: Yes
X-Spam-Flag: YES
which is why my regexp was `/^X-Spam.*YES/`. i believe, but do not
know, that the first is the mark of rspamd. no idea about the other
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 10:25:27PM -0800, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> Fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so I assume it is my
> >> lack of clue. Trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked
> >> spam on debian 12 run
>> Fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so I assume it is my
>> lack of clue. Trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked
>> spam on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
>>
>> milter_header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/milter_header
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0800, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
> Fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so I assume it is my
> lack of clue. Trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked
> spam on debian 12 running `mail_version
>> removed the `i` and they are still getting through.
>
> milter_header_checks cannot see all headers, not even all headers
> added by a milter. They only see headers that are added by a milter
> that is connected to the cleanup process that implements
> milter_header_checks.
>
> If you add the
Randy Bush via Postfix-users:
> >> fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so i assume it is my lack
> >> of clue. trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked spam
> >> on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
> >>
> >>
>> fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so i assume it is my lack
>> of clue. trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked spam
>> on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
>>
>> milter_header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/m
>> /^X-Spam.*YES/i REJECT
> Please review https://www.postfix.org/regexp_table.5.html#table_format
> and do pay attention to the 'i' option.
doh. thank you!
randy
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
Randy Bush via Postfix-users:
> fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so i assume it is my lack
> of clue. trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked spam
> on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
>
> milter_header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/milte
fairly new at trying a scaled postfix install, so i assume it is my lack
of clue. trying to use milter_header_checks to reject all marked spam
on debian 12 running `mail_version = 3.7.11`
milter_header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/milter_header_checks
with
# cat /etc/postfix
Testeur Starinux via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> I don't understand the meanings of these logs :
Oct 17 15:18:01 mail postfix/lmtp[1197734]: F06E53E040A:
to=, relay=domain.tld[
private/dovecot-lmtp], delay=0.15, delays=0.12/0.02/0.01/0, dsn=5.6.7,
status=bounced (SMTPUTF8 is r
equired, but was
Testeur Starinux via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-10-17 22:39:
Is there a solution to unallow this on my postfix server ?
with so much debug info in the above its not possible to find the root
in the trees :)
so postconf -nf, and postconf -Mf, or follow this link here
https://amavis-users.
ue. I check my test Gmail
account, and the message is indeed there, but Gmail has placed it
in the spam folder. I check the headers of said message, an SPF
and DKIM both pass.
I am open to suggestions.
It's probably just IP reputation and you need to let it build up
with google, but s
t;account, and the message is indeed there, but Gmail has placed it
> >in the spam folder. I check the headers of said message, an SPF
> >and DKIM both pass.
> >
> >I am open to suggestions.
>
> It's probably just IP reputation and you need to let it build up
>
ccepted from here, and relayed, Rspamd does
sign it, and Postfix's last message in the log is a message sent
delivered, and removed from my queue. I check my test Gmail account, and
the message is indeed there, but Gmail has placed it in the spam folder.
I check the headers of said message
Postfix's last message in the log is a message sent
delivered, and removed from my queue. I check my test Gmail account, and
the message is indeed there, but Gmail has placed it in the spam folder.
I check the headers of said message, an SPF and DKIM both pass.
I am open to suggestions.
>> I use mailman3. But AOL, YAHOO seems to consider emails sent to
>>> recipients as spam or an "Excessively high volume of emails". There's
>>> just 40 (aol, yahoo) emails suscribed to the list. i tested the list on
>>> www.mail-tester.com, but 1
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users writes:
> testeur via Postfix-users:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did a request to mailman3 ML about this question, but it seems that
>> postfix can respond to my request.
>> I use mailman3. But AOL, YAHOO seems to consider emails sen
testeur via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I did a request to mailman3 ML about this question, but it seems that
> postfix can respond to my request.
> I use mailman3. But AOL, YAHOO seems to consider emails sent to
> recipients as spam or an "Excessively high volume of emai
Hi,
I did a request to mailman3 ML about this question, but it seems that
postfix can respond to my request.
I use mailman3. But AOL, YAHOO seems to consider emails sent to
recipients as spam or an "Excessively high volume of emails". There's
just 40 (aol, yahoo) emails suscri
Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
> On 2023-08-23 at 14:38:18 UTC-0400 (Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:38:18 -0600)
> IUL Support via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > I must be missing something in what you're saying.
> >
> > If the server receives a message for myu...@mydomain.com and myuser's
>
may only be bouncing messages sent by reckless spammers who use VERP
only because that's what their tools do, and their spamming gets their
accounts killed or filled before their giant piles of spam have fully
delivered.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Cole via Postfix-users
Sent:
f successful bounce management
strategy to me.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Cole via Postfix-users
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:17 AM
To: IUL Support via Postfix-users
Subject: [pfx] Re: Spam mails seen in logfiles question
On 2023-08-23 at 05:22:21 UTC-0400 (Wed, 23 Aug 2023 0
is
generates a "backscatter" of bounces to forged addresses, often with
embedded spam and malware in the bounce messages.
The email will be from
some_spammy_text-myuser=mydomain@notmydomain.com and addressed
to
myu...@mydomain.com.
The LHS always seems to have the same basic format
e equal sign so it seems obvious that they're trying to accomplish
> something specific. Is it supposed to help them get past spam filtering,
> or get around some sort of bug?
I think they do it for bounce handling. If the recipient
some_spammy_text-myuser=mydomain@notmydomain.com
Is it supposed to help them get past spam filtering,
or get around some sort of bug?
Can anyone enlighten me as to what they're trying to accomplish and if I
should be doing anything configuration wise to block them from accomplishing
it?? Is it supposed to help them get past spam
Michel Verdier via Postfix-users wrote in
<87jzu4c5qi@free.fr>:
|On 2023-08-09, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
|
|> 192.0.2.1:submission inet n - n - - smtpd
|> -o syslog_name=vpnsub
|> -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=no
|> -o smtp
Michel Verdier via Postfix-users:
> On 2023-08-09, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > 192.0.2.1:submission inet n - n - - smtpd
> > -o syslog_name=vpnsub
> > -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=no
> > -o
> > smtpd_relay_restrictions=permit_my
On 2023-08-09, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
> 192.0.2.1:submission inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o syslog_name=vpnsub
> -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=no
> -o
> smtpd_relay_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject_unauth_destination
> -
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:53:02PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > > vpnsub_cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
> > > > -o {header_checks=regexp:{{/^Received:/ IGNORE}}}
> > >
> > > I am not aware of any suport for s
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:53:02PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > vpnsub_cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
> > > -o {header_checks=regexp:{{/^Received:/ IGNORE}}}
> >
> > I am not aware of any suport for such inline regexp tables. What
> > release of
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:48:11PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via
> > Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah the wonderful suggestion of this super helpful list (thanks
> > > again!) for my setup (laptop postfix on "forbidden add
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:48:11PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah the wonderful suggestion of this super helpful list (thanks
> > again!) for my setup (laptop postfix on "forbidden address" relays
> > to in-VPN postfix which then
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:48:11PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Yeah the wonderful suggestion of this super helpful list (thanks
> again!) for my setup (laptop postfix on "forbidden address" relays
> to in-VPN postfix which then sends out) was
>
> 192.0.2.1:submission ine
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> Michel Verdier via Postfix-users wrote in
> <87fs4s49y5@free.fr>:
> |On 2023-08-09, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
> |
> |> do you think this would be OK, or does the hostname and IP (be it
> |> localhost.local) have to be there ?
> |
>
Michel Verdier via Postfix-users wrote in
<87fs4s49y5@free.fr>:
|On 2023-08-09, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
|
|> do you think this would be OK, or does the hostname and IP (be it
|> localhost.local) have to be there ?
|
|Why don't you remove completely this header in your
Dnia 9.08.2023 o godz. 09:22:03 Bill Cole via Postfix-users pisze:
> A Received header that seems to record a SMTP
> session on the loopback by Postfix is not common,
Hm... I think it's quite common for webmail applications. They usually
connect to IMAP/SMTP server on loopback interface. (assumin
On 2023-08-09, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
> do you think this would be OK, or does the hostname and IP (be it
> localhost.local) have to be there ?
Why don't you remove completely this header in your postfix using for
example header_checks ? Received is frequently removed to hide
thinking about it now, could I remove the host and the IP entirely?
You CAN do just about anything with the Received headers, as it has a
long history of wildly divergent contents.
How MS reacts is the more relevant question and the answer is only known
to Cortana, or whatever MS calls their quasi
> On 2023-08-09 07:58, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 07:34:48AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users
wrote:
So that the first hop looks like this:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.xxx.yyy (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E0
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 07:34:48AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users
wrote:
> So that the first hop looks like this:
>
> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by mail.xxx.yyy (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E011B0
> for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 07:04:42 +0200 (CEST)
Try
Dear Fourhundred,
Am 09.08.23 um 07:34 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users:
my email was flagged as spam by Microsoft.
I have the received email, together with all the headers that Microsoft
added. Specifically the item: X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
I have found a tool on
Hello,
my email was flagged as spam by Microsoft.
I have the received email, together with all the headers that Microsoft
added. Specifically the item: X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:
I have found a tool on github, which attempts to decode this convoluted
item (https://github.com/mgeeky
You are ignoring my response. That is rude. Stop spamming
the postfix-users list with your repeated information.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
, status=bounced (host x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]
said: 550 Mail was identified as spam. (in reply to end of DATA
command))
the recipient's mail dserver with IP address x.x.x.x refused accepting 56MB
mail from you, noting that it is spam.
Relay server log:
May 16 08:41:14 smtp520 postfix-sen16/smtpd[
active)
May 16 08:41:31 smtp3 postfix-sen/smtp[10076]: 3420CA2062F:
to=, relay=x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25, delay=18,
delays=0.52/0/0.1/17, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]
said: 550 Mail was identified as spam. (in reply to end of DATA
command))
May 16 08:41:31 smtp3 postfix-sen/bounce[13268
2/0/0.1/17, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]
> said: 550 Mail was identified as spam. (in reply to end of DATA
> command))
>
> Relay server log:
>
> May 16 08:41:14 smtp520 postfix-sen16/smtpd[28709]: connect from
> unknown[x.x.x.x]
> May 16 08:41:14 s
gt;
> $daemon_directory/$process_name $process_id & sleep 5
> header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
>
> I am not sure, but have you checked the configuration above? They seem to
> be influenced by message content.
>
> 2023-05-16 12:02，l...@cndns.com：
>
> Relay serv
>
>
> Relay server configuration is very simple.
>
> debugger_command = PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin ddd
$daemon_directory/$process_name $process_id & sleep 5
> header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
I am not sure, but have you checked the configuration above? Th
6 08:41:14 smtp3 postfix-sen/qmgr[27776]: 3420CA2062F:
> from=, size=56791841, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> May 16 08:41:31 smtp3 postfix-sen/smtp[10076]: 3420CA2062F:
> to=, relay=x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25, delay=18,
> delays=0.52/0/0.1/17, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]
> s
=, size=56791841, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
May 16 08:41:31 smtp3 postfix-sen/smtp[10076]: 3420CA2062F:
to=, relay=x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25, delay=18,
delays=0.52/0/0.1/17, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]
said: 550 Mail was identified as spam. (in reply to end of DATA
command))
May 16 08:41
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 09:32:14AM +0800, l...@cndns.com wrote:
> We did not use a service like milter, but simply used postfix relays at
> both ends, nor did we use spamassassin.
Retelling in your own words what you believe happened won't enable
anyone to help you. :-(
For actual help, follow
We did not use a service like milter, but simply used postfix relays at
both ends, nor did we use spamassassin.
If these services are used, the problem will be simple. The spam
filtering service is not used, but it is judged as spam, so it is
strange.
Our postfix version is 2.11, and the
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:32:45PM +0800, lty--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>
> Hello
>
> The mail is transferred to the postfix service of the relay server
> through the postfix service. Occasionally, the mail will be rejected and
> the message "said: 550 Mail was i
> Hi lty,
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:32:45PM +0800, lty--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>> (...)
>> We are using postfix 2.11 version.
>
> Really? My postfix version are:
> yw-0919: Postfix 3.3.0 / Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
> yw-1204: Postfix 3.5.18 / Debian 11 Bullseye
>
> And yw-1204 have OpenDKIM 2.11 as *
Hi lty,
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:32:45PM +0800, lty--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> (...)
> We are using postfix 2.11 version.
Really? My postfix version are:
yw-0919: Postfix 3.3.0 / Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
yw-1204: Postfix 3.5.18 / Debian 11 Bullseye
And yw-1204 have OpenDKIM 2.11 as *Outbond* SMTP
On 12.05.23 15:32, lty--- via Postfix-users wrote:
The mail is transferred to the postfix service of the relay server
through the postfix service. Occasionally, the mail will be rejected and
the message "said: 550 Mail was identified as spam" will be returned. I
checked the source code
Hello
The mail is transferred to the postfix service of the relay server
through the postfix service. Occasionally, the mail will be rejected and
the message "said: 550 Mail was identified as spam" will be returned. I
checked the source code and found no similar error message
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[AEGIS] via Postfix-users:
> Is there any chance that SPF and DKIM records could be added to
> appear in the headers ?
The list server adds its own DKIM-Signature: on behalf of the domain
postfix.org, AND it adds ARC headers and Authentication-Results:
for the message
Is there any chance that SPF and DKIM records could be added to appear in the
headers ?
The gubba-mint folks are getting extremely medieval about email security.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an em
Wietse Venema:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Correction: the MTA<==>Milter protocol hides the Received: header
> > > that is prepended by the MTA, but it exposes headers that are already
> > > present. That's what Sendmail does, and
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Correction: the MTA<==>Milter protocol hides the Received: header
> > that is prepended by the MTA, but it exposes headers that are already
> > present. That's what Sendmail does, and therefore Postfix, too.
>
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Correction: the MTA<==>Milter protocol hides the Received: header
> that is prepended by the MTA, but it exposes headers that are already
> present. That's what Sendmail does, and therefore Postfix, too.
Not only does Sendmail do th
Bill Cole:
> What is likely happening here is that when a milter sees a message, it
> does not have the current Received header, because it has yet to be
> fully received. If you are extracting this message from that stage
> rather than after final delivery, Postfix has not yet added the Receive
>> No idea what's stripping them. I use amavisd and spamassassin, the
>> later I expect.
>
>Nope. ASF SpamAssassin does not manipulate existing headers in any way
>except for pre-existing X-Spam-* headers that it is specifically
>configured to remove. When used via
in a check_client_access map.
No idea what's stripping them. I use amavisd and spamassassin, the
later I expect.
Nope. ASF SpamAssassin does not manipulate existing headers in any way
except for pre-existing X-Spam-* headers that it is specifically
configured to remove. When used via
Dnia 20.01.2023 o godz. 15:25:56 Scott Techlist pisze:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
> myhost.myservername.com
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at myservername.com
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Spam-Score: 1.451
> X-Spam-Level: *
> X-Spam-St
ks there as I understood it caused a lot of
overhead.
>There is also spamassassin(1) and rspamd(1) for milter-based content
>inspection and spam detection.
I'm using amavisd and spamassassin via amavisd. I've considered changing to
rspamd for some time but have been reluctant (chicken) LOL.
Thank you for the help.
P address of the client making the SMTP connection.
There is also the $header_checks parameter which lets you match
content in arbitrary headers. See postconf(5) and header_checks(5).
There is also spamassassin(1) and rspamd(1) for milter-based content
inspection and spam detection.
cheers,
raf
Here is the output of posfconf -nf
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases proxy:pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql-aliases.cf
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
compatibility_level = 2
content_filter = amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
inet_interfaces = all
inet_protocols = all
local_recip
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 08:33:02AM -0600, Austin Witmer wrote:
> I’m not sure what instructions I’m not following?
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
Specifically "postconf -nf" and "postconf -Mf" output, verbatim without
changes in whitespace or line breaks.
Though I've alread
Hello Wietse!
I’m not sure what instructions I’m not following? Below is what was in the
welcome message I received. I’m not wishing to unsubscribe or report a problem
about the list . . .
Austin Witmer
--
Welcome to the postfix-users mailing list!
Please save this message for future referen
Please follow instructions in the mailing list welcome message.
Wietse
And here are the log lines from mail.log when I send a test message, just in
case that helps anyone.
Jun 18 03:15:40 mail postfix/submission/smtpd[21926]: connect from
97-123-96-141.albq.qwest.net[97.123.96.141]
Jun 18 03:15:42 mail postfix/submission/smtpd[21926]: 4E16C17A09B:
client=97-123-96
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:45:12PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 2022 Apr 15, at 16:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> >
> >> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
> >> no email address in it at all,
> >
> > Thi
On 2022 Apr 15, at 16:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
>> no email address in it at all,
>
> This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions.
No it does not.
> The "To:" h
On 16/04/2022 10.53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
>> no email address in it at all,
>
> This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions. The "To:" header must
> contain at l
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
>
> > Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
> > <400the...@gmx.ch>:
> >
> > Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
>
>
> RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination
> date field and
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with
> no email address in it at all,
This violates RFC5322 and earlier versions. The "To:" header must
contain at least one address (or group).
https://datatracker.ie
> On 2022 Apr 15, at 07:30, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
>
>> Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
>> have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
>
> bcc does not remove or add to
No, and that's not what what said. However
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
bcc does not remove or add to
I didn't say that :)
(maybe the "so they have no.." implied so
On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote:
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or
have one with "undisclosed-recipients").
bcc does not remove or add to
So I'd be careful with rejecting/filtering only based on that.
spammers does not know all that details :=)
On 2022-04-15 08:49, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt
Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 02:21:46 li...@lazygranch.com pisze:
>
> The header doesn't look odd because the mailing list provides a TO
> field.
No, it doesn't. I don't see any "To:" field in the headers of Tinne11's
message. I do see a "Cc:" field, but not "To:".
And referring to the original quest
On 15/04/22 6:49 pm, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
<400the...@gmx.ch>:
Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the o
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:06:35 +0200
Tinne11 wrote:
>
> > Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat
> > <400the...@gmx.ch>:
> >
> > Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
>
>
> RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination
> date field and
> Am 15.04.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch>:
>
> Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
RFC 5322 says: "The only required header fields are the origination date field
and the originator address field(s).", i. e. the "Date:" and the "From:" head
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
[...]
Are there any legitimate cases where "to:" might be missing?
Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no
dred Thecat
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. April 2022 08:49
An: Postfix users
Betreff: spam emails with "to:" line missing
Hello,
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in the
email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-
Hello,
I am receiving spam emails, where the "to:" line is entirely missing in
the email header.
The header has "X-Original-To:" and "Delivered-To:", but no "to:" line.
I have pasted the header here: https://ctxt.io/2/AABg30FRFQ
How could I block such
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a postfix config problem or an amavis/SA
problem. I have a multi-instance postfix config, and my mailer-daemon
messages are being filtered by my amavisd/SA config, many of which are
being quarantined as spam instead of being returned to the sender.
Of course
On 12/01/2022 02:34, raf wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 04:10:58PM +0100, Joachim Lindenberg
wrote:
Hello Levi,
In my experience the best spam protection is a custom domain with an email
server supporting gray-listing (postfix does). I receive almost no spam on my
own domain but plenty
1 - 100 of 2424 matches
Mail list logo
