* Evan Platt :
> At 03:59 PM 7/29/2009, you wrote:
> >It looks like somebody is trying to figure out my internal users as
> >evidenced by log excerpts below. Is there something I could do to, if
> >not prevent this, reduce it?
>
> If you're seeing a lot of attempts, I say just block them in your
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 04:19 CEST,
Jeff Huang wrote:
> How to determine the mail from when the mail is sending.
>
> For example,I send a email to i...@domain2.com from the domain1.com(the
> sender is i...@domain1.com).
>
> And the id2 at domain2.com is a aliase to i...@domain3.com.
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 06:19 CEST,
Olivier Nicole wrote:
> I am using dovecot with postfix for authentication.
>
> Everything (TLS/SSL, authentication) is working fine, except I cannot
> find a way to force STARTLS before authentication:
>
> 20 mail2.cs.ait.ac.th ESMTP Postfix (
Hi,
I wonder if this can be achieved easily. I'm migrating from one server
to another, which includes migrating the postfix mailserver as well. I'm
hosting a number of virtual domains on the mail server. Naturally I want
to make the transition as smooth as possible.
I'm planning to migrate t
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 10:35 CEST,
Maróy �kos wrote:
> I wonder if this can be achieved easily. I'm migrating from one server
> to another, which includes migrating the postfix mailserver as well.
> I'm hosting a number of virtual domains on the mail server. Naturally
> I want to ma
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:35:21 +0200
Maróy Ákos wrote:
> I'm planning to migrate the virtual domains one by one - and I will also
> have to face the fact that the update of the MX record for the domain
> will take some time. Thus, for some time, mail will arrive an both the
> old and new locatio
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 08:59 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Evan Platt :
> > At 03:59 PM 7/29/2009, you wrote:
> > >It looks like somebody is trying to figure out my internal users as
> > >evidenced by log excerpts below. Is there something I could do to, if
> > >not prevent this, reduce it?
>
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:56 +0200, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> I guess I need prohibit the catch all account and offer the solution
> with the delimiter instead. That way all spam to bogus email addresses
> get rejected because the address does not exist.
>
> But still I wonder if there is a w
Tested and working perfect with these 3 lines:
smtpd_sender_login_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/smtpd_sender_login_maps.cf
smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_sender_login_mismatch
smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = yes
/etc/postfix/smtpd_sender_login_maps.cf:
query = SELECT username FROM mailbox WHERE us
> Apart from the IPTables a more autonomous fix could be done with the
> (improper ?) use of Anvil. Any more than X connections in a couple of
> minutes and goodnight sweetheart.
This is generally strongly advised against. anvil is a DoS-protection
mechanism, not a rate-limit tool - it exists to h
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
> Of course we don't know which email addresses are valid so all mail for
> the domain is accepted on our servers.
That is your problem to be fixed. Maybe this helps:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient
-
Hi,
I'm trying to setup a postfix enviroment to relay about 200k mails per hour.
The hardware and the network link will be well dimensioned, so I like
to talk about the configuration part of this setup.
There are several options to tune in postfix, like timouts and
concurrent sessions etc..
My ide
Hi,
I'm trying to setup a postfix enviroment to relay about 200k mails per hour.
The hardware and the network link will be well dimensioned, so I like
to talk about the configuration part of this setup.
There are several options to tune in postfix, like timouts and
concurrent sessions etc..
My ide
Luciano,
Use transport.
You can do it for each domain, or even for each user if you care about
beeing able to reject mail for non-existent users at the SMTP port.
I did both and I found it straightforward... :-)
thanks for the info. so, I create a /etc/postfix/transport file, with
say the fol
Hi!
How could I set up my postfix so that if it receives
somegr...@domain.tld, then that mail is delivered to all members in that
group, but only if user is not disabled in PDC?
Basically it means that aliases are based on windows/samba groups.
Winbind is configured and works, I only need to
2009/7/30 Christian Wittwer :
> I'm trying to setup a postfix enviroment to relay about 200k mails per hour.
> The hardware and the network link will be well dimensioned, so I like
> to talk about the configuration part of this setup.
> There are several options to tune in postfix, like timouts and
2009/7/30 Maróy Ákos :
> thanks for the info. so, I create a /etc/postfix/transport file, with say
> the following line:
>
> example.com smtp:newmachine.example.com:25
The right-hand side of the transport file should have square brackets
around the hostname. By default, Postfix would attempt to
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:25:18 +0200
Maróy Ákos wrote:
>
> thanks for the info. so, I create a /etc/postfix/transport file, with
> say the following line:
>
> example.comsmtp:newmachine.example.com:25
You do not need the :25 if the transport is smtp (though it shouldn't harm)
> and remove
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 07:06 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
> > Of course we don't know which email addresses are valid so all mail for
> > the domain is accepted on our servers.
>
> That is your problem to be fixed. Maybe this helps:
>
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
> reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
> This way only address verification is needed when the mail passes the
> rbls en policies?
Actually, I th
On Jul 30, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy
services.
This way only address verification is needed when th
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
> Mmmm, I'm using transport maps to forward mail to the final mail
> server. So the verify should contact the remote server and I think
> that is almost as expensive as a RBL check.
I don't think so, but am not certain... hopefully some
Dear Barney,
The right-hand side of the transport file should have square brackets
around the hostname. By default, Postfix would attempt to lookup the
MX for newmachine.example.com, which isn't what you want. Square
brackets suppress the MX lookup, and use the direct host lookup
instead. ie.:
2009/7/31 Maróy Ákos :
>> I'm pretty sure you leave it in, Postfix has to know it's meant to
>> handle the domain, which means either being "local", "relay" or
>> "virtual" (two types).
>> http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html
>
> ok, so I have my example.com in my vdomains file, and I h
Maróy Ákos wrote:
>>
>> I might have forgotten something, but I think that's it. Just remember
>> to `postmap` the /etc/postfix/transport file and add it to your
>> transport maps.
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps
> and then what else do I have to set?
>
> thanks. but now I'
Luciano,
If you remove it from virtual domain table you'll have to add it to
mydestination (mydestination = whatever_it_as, example.com)
oh, it worked this way.
thank you all for the help!
Akos
Maróy Ákos wrote:
> Luciano,
>
>> If you remove it from virtual domain table you'll have to add it to
>> mydestination (mydestination = whatever_it_as, example.com)
>
> oh, it worked this way.
>
> thank you all for the help!
>
>
> Akos
>
This is very wrong.. see my previous posts.
I am getting quite a bit of SPAM coming from Hotmail. Instead of using verify
to check and see if they are legit senders, I think I would rather just block
them and be done with it. Maybe after a few months of my server not responding
to Spammer garbage, I will be removed from their SPAM lists
> What would be the appropriate command to simply reject this domain?
I'd google for: postfix block domains
The first result I would get is:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/how-to-block-domains-postfix-684924/
HTH
Regards,
Serge Fonville
Thanks!
I did a search on the Postfix main site for "block" but didn't get any
results.
I wish there was a message board on the Postfix main site instead of JUST
the mailing list. Would making find things that are asked a lot quite
easier. Some of the mailing list archives don't have searc
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Mmmm, I'm using transport maps to forward mail to the final mail
server. So the verify should contact the remote server and I think
that is almost as expensive as a RBL check.
I don't think so, but am not certa
Rodman Frowert schrieb:
> Thanks!
>
> I did a search on the Postfix main site for "block" but didn't get any
> results.
block is a very universe ( in german it can be a big stone , or it may
row of uniform houses etc *g)
therefore search REJECT which is the right tec description
>
> I wish the
You're welcome!
Well, "Google is your friend"
Probably more than any other non-human resource
And very often it is faster as well
In my experience, mailing lists, are more of a 'last resort'
If you want a postfix forum, I'd say, start one
Just my 2ct
Regards,
Serge Fonville
On Thu, Jul 30, 2
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:31:13 -0500
> Von: "Rodman Frowert"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Blocking Hotmail
> I am getting quite a bit of SPAM coming from Hotmail. Instead of using
> verify to check and see if they are legit senders, I think
On 7/30/2009 10:51 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Address verify callouts are quite time consuming, so quite expensive -
> much more than an RBL lookup. However, when valid recipients are found
> in the cache, the impact on mail should be very low.
Thanks for correcting me... that is good to know.
> So
Brian,
IMO, you should follow Magnus' post and use relay_domains and
relay_recipient_maps if you are moving complete virtual mailbox domains
at one time.
I see. but can you be more specific, maybe with an example on what and
how to set?
Akos
Brian,
This is very wrong.. see my previous posts.
now I've set:
relay_domains = $mydestination, example.com
relay_transport = smtp:[newserver.foo.bar]
relayhost = [newserver.foo.bar]
and it forwards mail destined for example.com fine - but not my mail
server does not work as an outgoing m
Maróy Ákos wrote:
> Brian,
>
>> This is very wrong.. see my previous posts.
>
> now I've set:
>
> relay_domains = $mydestination, example.com
> relay_transport = smtp:[newserver.foo.bar]
> relayhost = [newserver.foo.bar]
>
>
> and it forwards mail destined for example.com fine - but not my mail
> s
On Thursday 30 July 2009 09:31:13 Rodman Frowert wrote:
> I am getting quite a bit of SPAM coming from Hotmail. Instead of using
> verify to check and see if they are legit senders, I think I would rather
> just block them and be done with it. Maybe after a few months of my server
> not respondin
Hi all,
I'm using the recipient_bcc_maps setting in main.cf to 'archive' all e-mail
to a separate mailbox:
main.cf:
recipient_bcc_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/archive.pcre
archive.pcre:
if !/@archive\.bcc$/
/^(.*)/ $...@archive.bcc
endif
Our postfix installation uses the 'virtual' transport for a
On Thursday 30 July 2009 07:48:25 Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> > I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
> > reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
> > This way only address verification is nee
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 17:32 CEST,
Maróy �kos wrote:
> > IMO, you should follow Magnus' post and use relay_domains and
> > relay_recipient_maps if you are moving complete virtual mailbox
> > domains at one time.
>
> I see. but can you be more specific, maybe with an example on what
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 18:46 CEST,
Tino Donderwinkel wrote:
> I'm using the recipient_bcc_maps setting in main.cf to 'archive' all
> e-mail to a separate mailbox:
>
> main.cf:
> recipient_bcc_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/archive.pcre
>
> archive.pcre:
> if !/@archive\.bcc$/
> /^(.*)/
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:39:06 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
> Willy De la Court wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm new to postfix coming from another MTA. I just want some feedback
on
>> the configuration I use at the moment and get some reponse for
improving
>> that configuration.
>>
>> Setup
Hi,
Right now we filter all messages using amavisd but on a box that's sending
up to 6000 messages per hour it's failing after a few thousand messages and
we think it might be because of amavis filtering. Not sure how to do this
but we would like to accomplish the following and your assistanc
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:42:06 -0500, "AMP Admin" wrote:
> Right now we filter all messages using amavisd but on a box that's
sending
> up to 6000 messages per hour it's failing after a few thousand messages
and
> we think it might be because of amavis filtering. Not sure how to do
this
> but we w
Willy De la Court wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:39:06 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
> wrote:
>
>>> local_recipient_maps = $virtual_mailbox_maps
>>> local_transport = virtual
>>>
>>>
>> This is not recommended because it doesn't follow the Address Class
>> definitions.
>> http://
I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
message_size_limit set to 104857600. Is there something else going into
the size calculation that I'm missing?
~Seth
2009/7/30 Barney Desmond :
> I have two immediate thoughts here; short one first:
> How do you propose to move non-deliverable mail from the first
> instance to the second one?
I think it should work with the parameter fallback_relay?
An other possiblity would be, to map directly volatile domains
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:37:19 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
> Willy De la Court wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:39:06 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
>> wrote:
>>
local_recipient_maps = $virtual_mailbox_maps
local_transport = virtual
>>> This is not r
Seth Mattinen:
> I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
> it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
> message_size_limit set to 104857600. Is there something else going into
> the size calculation that I'm missing?
Yes, the message E
AMP Admin a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Right now we filter all messages using amavisd but on a box that’s
> sending up to 6000 messages per hour it’s failing after a few thousand
> messages and we think it might be because of amavis filtering. Not
> sure how to do this but we would like to accompl
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Great.
I changed this;
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o cleanup_service_name=pre-cleanup
-o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
That appears to do the trick!
Now I have to check if I haven't
Wietse Venema:
> Seth Mattinen:
> > I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
> > it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
> > message_size_limit set to 104857600. Is there something else going into
> > the size calculation that I'm mis
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Seth Mattinen:
>>> I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
>>> it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
>>> message_size_limit set to 104857600. Is there something else going into
>>> the size
All,
I am simply trying to setup a postfix server solution (Fedora 9 is the OS) to
where I can host email for multiple email domains - similar to an ISP setup.
I am quite familiar and comfortable with setting up most of the postfix
elements and am setting them up using the virtual mailbox meth
I'm not sure how to do that. I'm new to postfix. Since I used iRedMail
scrip to set this up I'm having to reconfigure everything as I go. It
worked fine on our other mail servers but this one just has too much.
I think I'm going to start over and research how to build a minimal, fast,
small foo
John King wrote:
> All,
>
> I am simply trying to setup a postfix server solution (Fedora 9 is the OS) to
> where I can host email for multiple email domains - similar to an ISP setup.
>
> I am quite familiar and comfortable with setting up most of the postfix
> elements and am setting them up us
On Thursday 30 July 2009, AMP Admin wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Thank you for your reply. I used the iRedMail script to set this box up.
> I probably shouldn't have done that since I know there's no easy way to
> accomplish these sorts of things.
>
> The log file is over 170 so I'm having trouble gett
On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:57:16 John King wrote:
> I am simply trying to setup a postfix server solution (Fedora 9 is
> the OS) to where I can host email for multiple email domains -
> similar to an ISP setup.
>
> I am quite familiar and comfortable with setting up most of the
> postfix elements
Hi all,
My setup is simply this:
- Email sent to my domain is received by postfix on my Debian box
- All email at this domain is delivered locally to me (user dan)
- Using a simple .forward file, this email gets forwarded to my gmail
account
Maybe not the most graceful approach, but it's simple.
>
> Hi all,
>
> My setup is simply this:
> - Email sent to my domain is received by postfix on my Debian box
> - All email at this domain is delivered locally to me (user dan)
> - Using a simple .forward file, this email gets forwarded to my gmail
> account
>
> Maybe not the most graceful approach
Terry Carmen wrote:
>
>
> . . .
>
> My best guess is that Google doesn't like your IP address.
>
> Have you checked your spam folder?
>
>
>
Yes I checked spam folder, and tried having emails forwarded to a few other
non-gmail addresses of mine as well and the problem is the same. So it'
dvodvo:
> Jul 30 00:59:44 mydomain postfix/smtp[13941]: 7D04B96117E4:
> to=, orig_to=,
> relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[209.85.133.27]:25, delay=1.6,
> delays=0/0.01/0.13/1.4, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1248933584
> d35si1808699and.15)
The "250 2.0.0 OK 1248933584 d35si1808699and.15" i
On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284
Seriously? 96MB emails? I hope that's internal only.
--
Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
LuKreme wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284
>
> Seriously? 96MB emails? I hope that's internal only.
>
Nope, not internal. Why does that matter?
I only noticed this one because the idiot mail server (or user) o
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284
Seriously? 96MB emails? I hope that's internal only.
Nope, not internal. Why does that matter?
It doesn't matter
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
>
>> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284
>>>
>> Seriously? 96MB emails? I hope that's internal only.
>>
>>
>
> Nope, not internal. Why does that matter?
>
Pr
Tino Donderwinkel a écrit :
> Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Great.
>
> I changed this;
>
> smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o cleanup_service_name=pre-cleanup
> -o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
>
> That appears to do
Hello,
I've just set up a new postfix 2.x server on CentOS 5. As some
directives have changed and it's been a while since i've done this i'd
appreciate anyone looking over this configuration and commenting on what is
good, needs changing, etc.
The server is suppose to support only v
I am currently running a Gentoo machine with
Sendmail/MIMEDefang/Spamassassin/Clamav which acts as a front-end mail
server to a couple of different mail servers. The main back-end mail server
is an Exchange 2003 server and the other is currently a Mac OSX machine
running Mailman. I am using a maile
Get a turkey that seems to be doing a 302 redicrecting
and using www@ to 'frame' the point.
Any way of locking down the use of the www to just webforms on the
local web server?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti
Can anyone tell me what ESMTP (Nemesis). Sorry if this isn't postfix related.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, AMP Admin wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what ESMTP (Nemesis). Sorry if this isn't postfix related.
STOP HIJACKING THREADS.
Extended SMTP (ESMTP), sometimes referred to as Enhanced SMTP, is a
definition of protocol extensions to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
standard. G
Hi,
> 1. Sign outgoing messages with dkim and vbr (currently doing this with
> amavis)
>
> 2. Only allow sending from our networks
>
> 3. Do NOT filter, virus scan or spam scam outgoing messages
>
> 4. DO scan and filter incoming messages
>
> 5. Optimize / Tweak s
Stuff is AFU after server migration. Email can be delivered to accounts that
existing on domain1.com prior to the migration. I created a new domain,
domain2, and issued the standard cm user/g...@domain2.com.
I verified that the domain exist in both the mydestinations and virtual_users
sql d
Sorry. Didn't think about this going to a thread and just hit reply and
changed the title. haha
I meant more what is the Nemesis part. What kind of mail server is that?
Thanks for your reply. :)
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@post
This is excellent. If you have other non-content spam filtering suggestion,
I would greatly appreciate it.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Roman Gelfand wrote:
>
>> It looks like somebody is trying to figure out my internal users as
>> evidenced by log excerpts below. Is t
Thanks for your comments and advice Brian,
Very much appreciated.
- Original Message
From: Brian Evans - Postfix List
To: Postfix users
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:14:52 PM
Subject: Re: relay_domains help please
John King wrote:
> All,
>
> I am simply trying to setup a postfix
Roman Gelfand wrote:
This is excellent. If you have other non-content spam filtering
suggestion, I would greatly appreciate it.
You post in HTML, and you top-post. Please observe list
etiquette if you want further answers.
As someone else already pointed out, the client also used a
unqual
Jeff Grossman wrote:
I am currently running a Gentoo machine with
Sendmail/MIMEDefang/Spamassassin/Clamav which acts as a front-end mail
server to a couple of different mail servers. The main back-end mail server
is an Exchange 2003 server and the other is currently a Mac OSX machine
running Mail
ARG...
Well, tried to test with account webmas...@domain2.tld. I also tried using my
name, g...@domain2.tld, which maps back to webmas...@domain2.tld. So, blowing
away the alias webmaster from /etc/aliases, it suddenly works.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.
* AMP Admin :
> Can anyone tell me what ESMTP (Nemesis). Sorry if this isn't postfix related.
Nemesis is the product name of a SMTP server built by a German provider.
They ran their own system because they couldn't find something that would suit
their needs.
p...@rick
--
All technical answers
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:45 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
> > have seen articles about exporting the Exchange users via LDAP and putting
> > them in an access map file on the Postfix server, but I am not a big fan of
> > that. I would prefer to just query the Exchange server
84 matches
Mail list logo
