On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> There is no SMTP transaction; the mail is submitted directly with the
> sendmail(1) command, which is logged as "postfix/pickup" in the logs.
>
> We can see that the mail came from user ID 48, which is the "apache" user.
> It's a safe gue
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Subject: Re: Change error messages returned by Postfix
>
> This is the current implementation of "reject" footer messages.
>
> Wietse
>
> smtpd_reject_contact_information (defau
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:30:15AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>localtime
> Server local time (Mmm dd hh:mm:ss)
Hmm. This is not that useful without the information about the used
timezone.
Bastian
--
But Captain -- the engines can't take this much longer!
On 1/7/2011 5:21 AM, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:30:15AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
localtime
Server local time (Mmm dd hh:mm:ss)
Hmm. This is not that useful without the information about the used
timezone.
Bastian
The timezone doesn't matter he
I am using postfix smtp_header_checks to log subjects of mails
I have enabled WARN inside smtp_header_checks
But If I send a mail with a long subject then the subject gets chopped
at some length (approx 50 chars )
Is this documented somewhere (max length of WARN). ?
header_checks via cleanup
Bastian Blank:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:30:15AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >localtime
> > Server local time (Mmm dd hh:mm:ss)
>
> Hmm. This is not that useful without the information about the used
> timezone.
It is useful, as it is the SAME TIME as in the maillog f
Ram:
> I am using postfix smtp_header_checks to log subjects of mails
> I have enabled WARN inside smtp_header_checks
> But If I send a mail with a long subject then the subject gets chopped
> at some length (approx 50 chars )
Postfix truncates EVERYTHING, especially when it is logged. The
inten
Hi,
We have an issue with integrating a spam filter into postfix. When a
mail enters the mail system a loop start between postfix and dspam. And
I don't know why the loop start because when the mail returns to postfix
(localhost:10026) we override mailbox_transport and the mail should be
del
Martijn de Munnik (postfix):
> localhost:10026 inet n - n - 10 smtpd
> -o smtpd_proxy_filter=
> -o mailbox_transport=
mailbox_transport is a LOCAL(8) feature not an SMTPD(8) feature.
Wietse
* Noel Jones :
> On 1/6/2011 3:31 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >* Bob Proulx:
> >>I am helping a school and they have told me they need to keep an
> >>archive of all email through the site for a short period of time.
> >>They also need to delete email after a period of time. In the mean
> >>time
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> * Noel Jones :
> > On 1/6/2011 3:31 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > >* Bob Proulx:
> > >>I am helping a school and they have told me they need to keep an
> > >>archive of all email through the site for a short period of time.
> > >>They also need to delete email after a perio
On 01/07/2011 06:25 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Ram:
I am using postfix smtp_header_checks to log subjects of mails
I have enabled WARN inside smtp_header_checks
But If I send a mail with a long subject then the subject gets chopped
at some length (approx 50 chars )
Postfix truncates EVERYTHING,
Wietse:
> Postfix truncates EVERYTHING, especially when it is logged. The
> intention is to protect your file system against logfile flooding
> attack.
Ram:
> That seems absolutely reasonable from a tech point of view.
>
> Unfortunately people have designed business processes based on
> reports o
IT geek 31 wrote:
>
> Outlook is all-or-nothing - it can force encryption for all
> recipients, regardless if they have a certificate or not, or none at
> all.
>
Thunderbird and Enigmail can encrypt by default if a valid key is avalable.
HTH,
Mikael
I'm not sure that's true.
My Thunderbird just has the following options:
Default encryption setting when sending messages:
- Never (do not use encryption)
- Required (can't send message unless all recipients have certificates)
Again, all-or-nothing. A third option would be nice:
- Sometimes (en
Dear friends,
My mail server got blocked by spamcannibal.org, my domain can be
resolve able, still they wont let my ip delisting from, and because of
this my mail cannot receive mail from yahoo and gmail and others, but
if I sending them email it's fine both yahoo and gmail receive it
is there a wa
Am 07.01.2011 16:51, schrieb Samuel Sappa:
> Dear friends,
> My mail server got blocked by spamcannibal.org, my domain can be
> resolve able, still they wont let my ip delisting from, and because of
> this my mail cannot receive mail from yahoo and gmail and others, but
> if I sending them email it
On 1/7/2011 7:15 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Noel Jones:
On 1/6/2011 3:31 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Bob Proulx:
I am helping a school and they have told me they need to keep an
archive of all email through the site for a short period of time.
They also need to delete
Le 07/01/2011 16:21, IT geek 31 a écrit :
> I'm not sure that's true.
>
> My Thunderbird just has the following options:
>
> Default encryption setting when sending messages:
> - Never (do not use encryption)
> - Required (can't send message unless all recipients have certificates)
>
> Again, al
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/postfix_archive.shtml
> but you would use always_bcc_maps
Thanks for the pointer to that documentation. And all of the followup
discussion from the others. I will give that a try and see how it goes.
Thanks!
Bob
Le 07/01/2011 16:51, Samuel Sappa a écrit :
> Dear friends,
> My mail server got blocked by spamcannibal.org, my domain can be
> resolve able, still they wont let my ip delisting from, and because of
> this my mail cannot receive mail from yahoo and gmail and others, but
> if I sending them email i
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:52:39AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> It is useful, as it is the SAME TIME as in the maillog file.
Indeed. It is only ambiguous once a year, when clocks move back an hour
after DST. If you need to troubleshoot mail delivery between 1AM and
2AM localtime late in Autumn,
Dear
When using multiple-instance mode postfix send logs to syslog.
i'm using debian and postfix events are saved in /var/log/mail.log
Is there any solution/tips to create 2 logs files when using
multiple-instances mode
one for the main log "/var/log/mail.log" and the second for each postfix
in
David Touzeau:
>
> Dear
>
> When using multiple-instance mode postfix send logs to syslog.
> i'm using debian and postfix events are saved in /var/log/mail.log
>
> Is there any solution/tips to create 2 logs files when using
> multiple-instances mode
You can configure syslog_name and syslog_fac
Le 07/01/2011 12:21, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:30:15AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>localtime
>> Server local time (Mmm dd hh:mm:ss)
>
> Hmm. This is not that useful without the information about the used
> timezone.
more generally, time is not u
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:54:28PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> Case 2) your timezone is relatively stable. then put it in main.cf:
>
> my_time_zone =
> smtpd_reject_contact_information =
> blah blah time ($localtime).
> oh, and our timezone is ${my_time_zone}
This won't work. Generic
* Wietse Venema :
> Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > I know I can put a transport to hold if I specify its name in
> > $defer_transports. This requires "postfix reload" to put it to effect
> > immediately and issuing the reload will requeue all mail - not what I want
> > if
> > I can avoid it.
>
> defer_
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * Wietse Venema :
> > Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > > I know I can put a transport to hold if I specify its name in
> > > $defer_transports. This requires "postfix reload" to put it to effect
> > > immediately and issuing the reload will requeue all mail - not what I
> > > want i
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:21:11PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > You may be surprised to learn that defer_transports is implemented
> > by sending mail to the retry(8) delivery agent (Postfix 2.4 and
> > later). If you specify retry: in a transport map then it will have
> > the same effect
Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro
isn't expanded. Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested
with other reject reasons.
postconf snippit:
mail_version = 2.8-20110105
smtpd_reject_contact_informati
Noel Jones:
> Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
>
> When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro
> isn't expanded. Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested
> with other reject reasons.
You know what? I wil have to remove sender/recipient from
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:22:52PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
>
> When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro isn't expanded.
> Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested with other reject reasons.
Yes, the send
* Victor Duchovni :
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:21:11PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > > You may be surprised to learn that defer_transports is implemented
> > > by sending mail to the retry(8) delivery agent (Postfix 2.4 and
> > > later). If you specify retry: in a transport map then it
On 1/7/2011 4:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro
isn't expanded. Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested
with other reject reasons.
You know what? I wil hav
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:41:31PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > > Not quite - at least from what I learned from testing. It holds a message
> > > for a while, but then I observed Postfix releases the message after a
> > > short while.
> >
> > The message is not on "hold" it is deferred.
Wietse Venema:
> Noel Jones:
> > Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
> >
> > When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro
> > isn't expanded. Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested
> > with other reject reasons.
>
> You know what? I wil have t
On 1/7/2011 4:36 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:22:52PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
Unexpected behavior when testing smtpd_reject_contact_information.
When sending to an unknown recipient, the $recipient macro isn't expanded.
Is this expected behavior? I haven't tested wit
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:01:22PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> I see. Something like
> = Data: servertime=($localtime)
>client=($client_address|$client_port)
>${sender?from=($sender)}
>
> Am I correct assuming the time and client should always be available?
Yes.
>> I don't think that st
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 09:18 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse:
> > Postfix truncates EVERYTHING, especially when it is logged. The
> > intention is to protect your file system against logfile flooding
> > attack.
>
> Ram:
> > That seems absolutely reasonable from a tech point of view.
> >
> >
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 11:43:42AM +0530, Ramprasad wrote:
> Sahil Tandon's header_checks works at smtpd level ( I assume). Can the
> same be implemented at smtp level when the mail is actually sent.
> The idea is the mail may be queued and the syslog of the transaction
> info should happen when
On 1/8/2011 12:13 AM, Ramprasad wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 09:18 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse:
Postfix truncates EVERYTHING, especially when it is logged. The
intention is to protect your file system against logfile flooding
attack.
Ram:
That seems absolutely reasonable from a tech p
I set up postfix with:
> smtp_tls_policy_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/tls_policy
And a list of domains with "may" as the policy for each of them. The
problem is postfix hates the certificate (because I don't have it listed
as a trusted issuer anywhere).
So I get this error as expected:
> Jan 8 01:57:
42 matches
Mail list logo
