On Monday 03 January 2011 17:35:51 Wietse Venema wrote:
> J. Roeleveld:
> > On Monday 03 January 2011 04:12:46 Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Mark Scholten:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Should I look in the source or is there a better location to change
> > > > the texts returned by Postfix after th
Hi Postfix-Experts,
I have the need to activate an autoresponder in my postfix server. From the
postfix pages i found the package "autoresponse" very appealing and
convinient.
Installing and hooking into postfix via postfix pipe command (using exactly
the instructions from the autoresponse homepa
> - or someone can recommend another package like autoresponse, that works and
> have comparable features as autoresponse?
how about using sieve language for autoreponder:
http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve#Vacation_auto-reply-1
It worked fine last time on my postfix+dovecot setup
--
Eero
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:00 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Change error messages returned by Postfix
>
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011
Wietse Venema:
> Instead of making every response configurable, a more practical
> solution is to configure ONE response that gets appended to ALL
> the SMTP server's reject messages. Effectively, this turns the
> one-line reject into a two-line response, one chosen by Postfix
> and one chosen by t
Wietse wrote:
>
> The permissons are normal, therefore you have either
>
> - A corruped file system (not possible, since postcat can read the
> file).
>
> - Other file OR directory permission attributes that the "ls"
> command does not show but that allow you to view the files with
> sudo
Am 04.01.2011 12:59, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Instead of making every response configurable, a more practical
solution is to configure ONE response that gets appended to ALL
the SMTP server's reject messages. Effectively, this turns the
one-line reject into a two-line response, one
As it turned out, the problem was with 1-2-3 Systems' VPS service.
Through this mailing list I found another person who was having the
exact same problem with me with qmgr being killed constantly, who also
happened to be hosted on the same physical box as me at 1-2-3 Systems.
Since we were t
John Adams:
> > Example:
> >
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > smtpd_reject_contact_information = For assistance, call
> > 800-555-0101
> >
> > Server response:
> >
> > 550-5.5.1 > 550 5.5.1 For assistance, call 800-555-0101
> >
> > This feat
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 01:24:51PM +0100, John Adams wrote:
>> 550-5.5.1> 550 5.5.1 For assistance, call 800-555-0101
>>
>> This feature is available in Postfix 2.8.
>
> Cool. Thanks.
> Can this be configured in a multi-domain environment e.g. via restriction
> classes in
Am 04.01.2011 14:59, schrieb Victor Duchovni:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 01:24:51PM +0100, John Adams wrote:
550-5.5.1
Cool. Thanks.
Can this be configured in a multi-domain environment e.g. via restriction
classes in a way where every domain admin can supply his own contact
details?
I
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:09:01PM +0100, John Adams wrote:
> Yes, I understand that. But that is not how I experienced the world.
> Usually, if person X from domain X could not mail to person Z from domain Z
> for a reject reason given by mail provider M, then X would call Z (I cannot
> send y
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Instead of making every response configurable, a more practical
> > solution is to configure ONE response that gets appended to ALL
> > the SMTP server's reject messages. Effectively, this turns the
> > one-line reject into a two-line response, one chosen by Pos
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 17:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> With body checks, is there a way to insert a header or otherwise flag
>> the mail in a way CMUSieve could detect?
>
> Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
> easily establish from the manpage how the pr
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:36:41PM +0100, Mark Scholten wrote:
> >Server response:
> >
> >550-5.5.1 > unknown
> >550 5.5.1 For assistance, call 800-555-0101
> >
> >This feature is available in Postfix 2.8.
>
> Thank you. Is it possible to let this new setting co
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> > Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
> > easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
>
> So basically, the answer is "no".
>
> Behaving as documented is good. But is it the case that
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:12, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> > Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
>> > easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
>>
>> So basically, the answer is "no".
>>
Le 04/01/2011 10:26, Joerg Toellner a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> - Does anyone have an idea/hint for me why some addresses loose the TLD part
> when transmitted from postfix pipe feature to autoresponse bash script and
> how i can solve this? (Best way to solve of course).
>
> - If that is not clear/po
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:53:56AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> And that is part of my thinking.
All the features that you can use are documented. The internals
that you can use to *reason* about the behaviour of the system
when things go wrong are less easily described.
> There MAY have been som
Le 04/01/2011 16:53, Phil Howard a écrit :
> [snip] So I'm thinking about an alternative where I do a
> routine prepend of some very bizarre text (since it now inside the
> message body), that would be very unlikely to ever be in any message,
> and follow that with an external filter by inserting m
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:36:41PM +0100, Mark Scholten wrote:
>
> > >Server response:
> > >
> > >550-5.5.1 > > unknown
> > >550 5.5.1 For assistance, call 800-555-0101
> > >
> > >This feature is available in Postfix 2.8.
> >
> > Thank you. Is
Phil Howard:
> I'm assuming the header checks and body checks is implemented as some
> code that sees a stream, rather than the whole message (especially
> when doing body checks), so I'm guessing it would be non-trivial to
> add a new action in a future version that would do a "prepend to the
> to
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:53:56AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>> I'm assuming the header checks and body checks is implemented as some
>> code that sees a stream, rather than the whole message (especially
>> when doing body checks), so I'm gue
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, mouss wrote:
> with amavis, setup a spamassassin rule that matches your bizarre text.
> fopr instance
>
> body FOO_BAR_RULE /SomeExpression/i
> score FOO_BAR_RULE 0.1
> (0.1 is small enough to not alter spam status).
>
> then "FOO_BAR_RULE" will appear in the X-Spam-
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:33:25AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Thank you. Is it possible to let this new setting contain something that
> > > contains the client IP and/or something so we could identify it with a
> > > script?
> >
> > Identify what with a script?
> >
> >[talk about stuff in
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:39:01AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> In other words, for the test itself to be changed (as a new kind of
> test) to do what I need, it would either need random access to the
> message file (which cannot happen here if the message is not yet
> stored as a file), or has sep
Victor Duchovni:
> > I'm just guessing, but I suspect that this is about making trouble
> > shooting easier, like putting some unique "trouble ticket" like
> > string in the 4XX or 5XX response that is easily located in the
> > logfile, so they can quickly locate the entire session in the log.
> >
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 12:54:24PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> What I could do for now is a contact footer with dynamic context
> such as the SMTP server PID and client IP address. That information
> is already in the maillog file.
>
> So this would change the feature to:
>
> smtpd_reject
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 12:54:24PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > What I could do for now is a contact footer with dynamic context
> > such as the SMTP server PID and client IP address. That information
> > is already in the maillog file.
> >
> > So this would change the fe
Le 04/01/2011 17:44, Phil Howard a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, mouss wrote:
>
>> with amavis, setup a spamassassin rule that matches your bizarre text.
>> fopr instance
>>
>> body FOO_BAR_RULE /SomeExpression/i
>> score FOO_BAR_RULE 0.1
>> (0.1 is small enough to not alter spam status
"Wietse Venema"
> Example:
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> smtpd_reject_contact_information = For assistance, call
800-555-0101
>
> Server response:
>
> 550-5.5.1 550 5.5.1 For assistance, call 800-555-0101
>
> This feature is available in
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:09:07PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This would likely need to also be implemented in postscreen. :-( If
> > keyword-substitution is supported, apart from $pid, and $client_addr
> > also $rfc822_date would perhaps be useful to help search logs for the
> > right day.
>
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:20, mouss wrote:
> another idea is to use the FILTER action to pass these messages to a
> specific listener (smtpd) which prepends a header or rewrites the
> recipient to recipient+s...@example.com (via a specific cleanup).
That's an interesting idea. I'll give that on
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:32:45PM -0500, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
> But I don't see the point of adding more generic information in the
> response.
Providing a URL of a website which explains (for the reject messages
that you choose to document) what a sender needs to do to avoid being
rej
On 1/4/11 8:32 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
The only rejects that I get calls or emails about are:
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
reject_unknown_helo_hostname,
reject_unknown_client_hostname,
Don't blindly use that. It causes a LOT of false positives.
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostn
"Jeroen Geilman":
On 1/4/11 8:32 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
The only rejects that I get calls or emails about are:
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
reject_unknown_helo_hostname,
reject_unknown_client_hostname,
Don't blindly use that. It causes a LOT of false positives.
reject_unknown_
Wietse Venema:
> > > So this would change the feature to:
> > >
> > > smtpd_reject_contact_information =
> > > For assistance, call 800-555-0101 (pid=$pid, client=$client_addr)
> > >
> > > The result would look like:
> > >
> > > 554-5.5.1 : Recipient address reject: User unknown
> > >
On 1/4/2011 3:04 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
I'm trying to stop the chain of:
Sender calls recipient, recipient calls their tech,
recipient's tech calls me... Then I tell them to contact the
sender's admin... Then the sender's admin claims that
"everyone" else accepts their email, even tho
On 1/4/11 10:04 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
I'm trying to stop the chain of:
Sender calls recipient, recipient calls their tech, recipient's tech
calls me... Then I tell them to contact the sender's admin... Then the
sender's admin claims that "everyone" else accepts their email, even
th
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:09:04PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Having implemented $name expansion, I find that it is easy produce
> long contact footer text, so I have added multi-line support.
>
> Unfortunately, multi-line footers can be harder to read. For example,
> Postfix will word-wrap mu
On 27/12/2010 17:01, Victor Duchovni wrote:
So why would you change the tls_random_source to use EGD instead of
/dev/urandom?
You wouldn't, if you have a /dev/urandom, use it.
and if you are short of entropy on a busy server then grab one (or more)
of these:
http://www.entropykey.co.uk
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:42:09PM +, Ed W wrote:
> I have a couple now (I have several machines compiled with "hardened" pax
> and that depletes entropy extremely quickly) and they are very simple to
> install and extremely cheap. I believe they are even fast enough that you
> can buy few
Alban Deniz:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> A little over a year ago, you provided me with a patch to fix a postfix bug.
> Now, one of the users of my milter (SNFMilter) is experiencing problems that
> might be due to the bug.
>
> Could you please let me know which released version of postfix had the bug
>
43 matches
Mail list logo
