On Jul 13, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Claus R. Wickinghoff
>> wrote:
>>> I think this can be achieved with reject_unverified_recipient to query
>>> dovecot via lmtp but I've no practical experience with this. Probably
>>> you've to do som
On Jul 11, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Claus R. Wickinghoff wrote:
I think this can be achieved with reject_unverified_recipient to query
dovecot via lmtp but I've no practical experience with this. Probably
you've to do some googling...
On 12.07.21 10:19, Ron Garret wrote:
That turned out to be the
For the record:
On Jul 11, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Claus R. Wickinghoff wrote:
> I think this can be achieved with reject_unverified_recipient to query
> dovecot via lmtp but I've no practical experience with this. Probably you've
> to do some googling...
That turned out to be the Right Answer. I
On 11.07.21 23:26, Ron Garret wrote:
This has me wondering: if a message is sent to multiple recipients and some
are valid and others are not, what is the Right Thing to do?
The right thing is to refuse all non-existing recipients, which postfix does
by default if it knows what addresses exist.
Thanks, that was very helpful.
This has me wondering: if a message is sent to multiple recipients and some are
valid and others are not, what is the Right Thing to do?
rg
P.S. Just FYI:
> I'm not sure what the problem is with Postfix and sqlite
See
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/What-i
On 7/11/21 3:46 PM, Ron Garret wrote:
Ah. That may be my problem then. I’m using Dovecot via LMTP for local
delivery. I thought that postfix would receive information about non-existent
users via that protocol, but I guess it doesn’t and ends up just accepting
everything.
So… is dovecot ac
On 2021-07-11 at 15:46:45 UTC-0400 (Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:46:45 -0700)
Ron Garret
is rumored to have said:
On Jul 11, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
The problem is that a rejected recipient produces a mailer-daemon
reply.
only if you accept mail for such recipient.
Ah.
Ron Garret:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
>
> On Jul 11, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> The problem is that a rejected recipient produces a mailer-daemon reply.
> >
> > only if you accept mail for such recipient.
>
> Ah. That may be my problem then. I
Hi,
I thought that postfix would receive information about non-existent users via
that protocol, but I guess it doesn’t and ends up just accepting everything.
These are two different things:
1. postfix gets the e-mail from the internet via smtp and puts in his
queue. From this point on post
On Jul 11, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> The problem is that a rejected recipient produces a mailer-daemon reply.
>
> only if you accept mail for such recipient.
Ah. That may be my problem then. I’m using Dovecot via LMTP for local
delivery. I thought that postfix
Ron Garret:
I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
specific domain. This domain has blacklisted my server?s IP
address, and so bounce replies sent to this domain are piling up
in my mail queue and I have to go through periodically and manually
delete them. I don?t want to
Hi,
The problem is that a rejected recipient produces a mailer-daemon reply.
You need to get rid of them.
My approach is to reject them in smtp dialogue. I generate a list of
valid recipient addresses by script automatically and use this (hashed)
list in smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
See http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail, which describes how
best to get useful help here.
Actual log excerpts, sample messages related to that logging, and
'postconf -n' output would help a great deal in understanding your
problem.
In general, you only can fully fix backscatter (i
Yes, I looked at that, but AFAICT that is all about blocking INBOUND
backscatter spam, not stopping outbound messages.
On Jul 11, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Kevin N. wrote:
> This might help: http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> K.
>
>
>> On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Wiets
On Jul 11, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ron Garret:
> [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Garret:
I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
specific domain. This domain has blackl
This might help: http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
Cheers,
K.
On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Ron Garret:
I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
specific domain. This domain has blacklisted my server?s IP
address, and so bounce replie
Ron Garret:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
>
> On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Ron Garret:
> >> I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
> >> specific domain. This domain has blacklisted my server?s IP
> >> address, and so bounce replies sent
On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ron Garret:
>> I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
>> specific domain. This domain has blacklisted my server?s IP
>> address, and so bounce replies sent to this domain are piling up
>> in my mail queue and I have to
Ron Garret:
> I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one
> specific domain. This domain has blacklisted my server?s IP
> address, and so bounce replies sent to this domain are piling up
> in my mail queue and I have to go through periodically and manually
> delete them. I don?t
I have recently come under a backscatter spam attack from one specific domain.
This domain has blacklisted my server’s IP address, and so bounce replies sent
to this domain are piling up in my mail queue and I have to go through
periodically and manually delete them. I don’t want to disable bo
Robert Fitzpatrick:
> >> I have a Postfix 2.8.5 server that is a gateway transport for several
> >> domains and it is sending backscatter when the transport map destination
> >> rejects user unknown.
> Further examination of the MAILER_DAEMON messages show the transport
> destination server rejecti
On 1/24/2012 10:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Robert Fitzpatrick :
>> I have a Postfix 2.8.5 server that is a gateway transport for several
>> domains and it is sending backscatter when the transport map destination
>> rejects user unknown.
>
> User relay_recipient_maps OR use reject_unverifi
* Robert Fitzpatrick :
> I have a Postfix 2.8.5 server that is a gateway transport for several
> domains and it is sending backscatter when the transport map destination
> rejects user unknown.
User relay_recipient_maps OR use reject_unverified_recipient in
smtpd_*_restrictions.
--
Ralf Hildebra
I have a Postfix 2.8.5 server that is a gateway transport for several
domains and it is sending backscatter when the transport map destination
rejects user unknown. I see multiple MAILER_DAEMON messages like this in
the queue at any given time. I was reading this document and see the
local_recipien
Chris Turan a écrit :
> Thank you to everyone. I'm getting some great suggestions. I didn't
> know about several of the features postfix provides and have been
> relying mostly on spamassassin to do the work for me.
>
>> I don't see the smtpd_*_restrictions. Sensible ones there cut down on
>> a
Chris Turan wrote:
Thank you to everyone. I'm getting some great suggestions. I didn't
know about several of the features postfix provides and have been
relying mostly on spamassassin to do the work for me.
I don't see the smtpd_*_restrictions. Sensible ones there cut down on
acres of spam a
Thank you to everyone. I'm getting some great suggestions. I didn't
know about several of the features postfix provides and have been
relying mostly on spamassassin to do the work for me.
I don't see the smtpd_*_restrictions. Sensible ones there cut down on
acres of spam and take load off the
Chris Turan wrote:
Terry Carmen wrote:
Don't do that. Once you've accepted a message, it's yours. Aside from
anything else, it makes you look bad when someone sends a legitimate
email that happens to "look" spammy and you bounce it back as spam.
Right, I'm trying to correct that problem. This
J Sloan wrote:
Keep sending out backscatter spam, and you will most certainly end up on
blacklists.
I think you might have misread my intention. I definitely don't want to
continue sending backscatter. Per another suggestion on the list, I
made a change that stopped all of my backscatter sp
Chris Turan wrote:
>
> Ouch, but you're right. I am creating my own misery. It wasn't a
> problem before when I was unknown to the spammers. Its only been a
> problem for a few weeks and I haven't yet been put on any blacklists.
Keep sending out backscatter spam, and you will most certainly end
Corey Chandler wrote:
Tough-- you're really creating your own misery here. You MUST either
reject at the gateway, or accept the traffic without sending a
bounce. You can delete silently if you trust your filters, but given
that the vast majority of spam has a forged From: header, you're
inflicti
Terry Carmen wrote:
Don't do that. Once you've accepted a message, it's yours. Aside from
anything else, it makes you look bad when someone sends a legitimate
email that happens to "look" spammy and you bounce it back as spam.
Right, I'm trying to correct that problem. This wasn't much of an i
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Turan
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2008 7:39 AM
> To: Terry Carmen
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Stopping backscatter with before-queue
>
>
Chris Turan wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
amavisd-new meets all your criteria, providing you configure it to
tag+deliver mail rather than bounce.
Well, I also have it set to bounce messages with a spamassassin score
above 12. Turning that off and just delivering everything with
tagging *could*
Chris Turan wrote:
Terry Carmen wrote:
To eliminate *sending* backscatter, all you need to do is not accept
mail you won't be able to deliver:
I am rejecting unknown recipients but the bounces are coming from
messages with a spamassassin score above 12.
Don't do that.
Once you've accepted a
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:13:57PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> If you want to investigate setting up amavisd-new as a pre-queue filter,
> general instructions are here:
> http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html
> More specific instructions can likely be found in the archives of the
> amav
Chris Turan wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
You need to configure postfix to reject unknown recipients during
SMTP. Switching to something other than amavisd-new and/or switching
to a before-queue filter won't help that.
Hey Noel. I actually am rejecting unknown recipients. I wrote some
software
Terry Carmen wrote:
To eliminate *sending* backscatter, all you need to do is not accept
mail you won't be able to deliver:
I am rejecting unknown recipients but the bounces are coming from
messages with a spamassassin score above 12.
Unfortunately, there's still no such thing as a "free lun
Noel Jones wrote:
You need to configure postfix to reject unknown recipients during SMTP.
Switching to something other than amavisd-new and/or switching to a
before-queue filter won't help that.
Hey Noel. I actually am rejecting unknown recipients. I wrote some
software to refresh the reci
Chris Turan wrote:
Hey All,
I'm having an issue with backscatter emails and implementing a
before-queue spam and virus scanner. My current mail server uses a
after-queue amavisd-new scanner with spamassassin and clamav. In the
last two weeks, my system has started *sending* a significant nu
Chris Turan wrote:
Hey All,
I'm having an issue with backscatter emails and implementing a
before-queue spam and virus scanner. My current mail server uses a
after-queue amavisd-new scanner with spamassassin and clamav. In the
last two weeks, my system has started *sending* a significant nu
Hey All,
I'm having an issue with backscatter emails and implementing a
before-queue spam and virus scanner. My current mail server uses a
after-queue amavisd-new scanner with spamassassin and clamav. In the
last two weeks, my system has started *sending* a significant number of
backscatter
42 matches
Mail list logo
