Hi,
I'd like to draw your attentention on just another web based management
interface aimed at postfix mailservers. It is called VBoxAdm (Virtual
Mailbox Admin) and allows management of virtual domains, mailboxes,
aliases and alias domains. It is free software released under the terms of
the GNU G
I've did it using canonical maps :
Main.cf :
sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
/etc/postfix/canonical:
@test.local @test.edu
Thanks
Nasser
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix
Am 06.03.2011 07:51, schrieb kapetr:
> My "from:" address used by these tests of fresh Postfix installation
> I have and use many years - so it fit not in yours definition of
> "spamtrap adress".
seems you do not understand waht a spamtrap is
hint: your sender-address does not play in this game
Dear all,
** QUESTION 1
I just noticed this message appearing the log files (mail.log). I
read a little on the page http://www.postfix.org/QSHAPE_README.html, but
did not quite understand where my postfix problem lied. The queues are
very quiet presently. This mail server does not have a lo
dear
i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from internet
allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
For testing purpose, i have set a network different from the LAN to be
sure that postfix allow SASL connections
but it seems that postfix did not want to test the authenticati
Sounds like you have set something like this in main.cf
anvil_rate_time_unit = 1800s
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit = 50
this means "a maximum of 50 connection per half a hour from the same ip"
my example 50/18000 is from our live configuration on postfix-servers
as well our bar
Hi list,
I am running a Debian Lenny machine with Postfix 2.5.5 and Dovecot 2.0.8. Up
until now I ran Postfix with the Procmail delivery agent succesfully. The
machine has only local users; I am not using virtual mailboxes. Due to obvious
reasons I want to switch to Dovecot LDA delivery, throu
On 03/06/2011 01:18 PM, David Touzeau wrote:
dear
i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from internet
allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
For testing purpose, i have set a network different from the LAN to be
sure that postfix allow SASL connections
but it seems that
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:18:02 +0100
David Touzeau articulated:
> dear
>
> i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from
> internet allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
>
> For testing purpose, i have set a network different from the LAN to be
> sure that postfix allow SAS
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:43:11PM +0300, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
> Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka kern.alert kernel: CPU 0 Unable to handle
> kernel paging request at virtual address 0050, epc == 800fbdb4, ra
> == 800fbdf8
This kernel is broken bejond repair. Get a fixed one.
> Mar 4 14:46:29 shuly
Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 13:58 +0100, Jeroen Geilman a écrit :
> On 03/06/2011 01:18 PM, David Touzeau wrote:
> > dear
> >
> > i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from internet
> > allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
> >
> > For testing purpose, i have set a network d
Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 07:58 -0500, Jerry a écrit :
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:18:02 +0100
> David Touzeau articulated:
>
> > dear
> >
> > i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from
> > internet allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
> >
> > For testing purpose, i hav
I am running a Debian Lenny machine with Postfix 2.5.5 and Dovecot 2.0.8. Up
until now I ran Postfix with the Procmail delivery agent succesfully. The
machine has only local users; I am not using virtual mailboxes. Due to
obvious reasons I want to switch to Dovecot LDA delivery, through LMTP.
On 6 mrt 2011, at 15:08, David Touzeau wrote:
>>> but it seems that postfix did not want to test the authentication
>>> method and pass it's rules trough subnet rules to finally refuse the
>>> connection with a "Client host rejected: Access denied"
[snip]
> smtpd_delay_reject = no
http://www.po
Hello,
reply for:
"Peter Evans" and
Reindl Harald
My ISP (without need of request it and pay for it :-) assign every
time (via PPPOE on ADSL) the same IP address for the same client
(DSLAM port). So my IP is from "dynamic" range, but in practice is
it static IP.
I'm sure about it and it is v
* Jeroen Geilman :
> On 03/06/2011 01:18 PM, David Touzeau wrote:
> >dear
> >
> >i would like to use submission port for authenticate users from internet
> >allowing them to the postfix smtpd server
> >
> >For testing purpose, i have set a network different from the LAN to be
> >sure that postfix a
Remy Zandwijk:
> Is there a way Postfix can be told to get rid of the domain part if mail is
> sent through LMTP?
No. The LMTP protocol, like SMTP requires complete email addresses.
Wietse
Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 16:08 +0100, DTNX/NGMX Postmaster a écrit :
> Jona
Many thanks jona
smtpd_delay_reject = yes
fix the issue
Hello :),
> From : myrdhin
> Thank you for your help. I'll try your solution.
Sorry, but i always have "Too many connections, slow down." in my
/var/log/mail.log.
My Postfix is old (mail_version = 2.1.5) butI am constrained to correct this
problem before doing the migration on another server (
On 03/06/2011 04:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Remy Zandwijk:
Is there a way Postfix can be told to get rid of the domain part if mail is
sent through LMTP?
No. The LMTP protocol, like SMTP requires complete email addresses.
Wietse
Additionally, overriding local_transport
Dear all,
I am running Postfix and Mailman on my server with MySQL as backend. It
works like a charm (including mailman) but for one domain (customerA.com)
the following error message is generating when the admin user maintains a
list and an email is being generated (e.g. when adding/removing
Werner Schalk:
> Dear all,
>
> I am running Postfix and Mailman on my server with MySQL as backend. It
> works like a charm (including mailman) but for one domain (customerA.com)
> the following error message is generating when the admin user maintains a
> list and an email is being generated (
I'm asking trying to learn:
Is there a benefit of using LMTP for local delivery when using Dovecot?
Why not use Dovecot LDA (without using LMTP)?
In Postfix documentation, I've read about lmtp that "The advantage of
this setup is that one Postfix machine can feed multiple mailbox servers
ove
Nikolaos Milas:
> I'm asking trying to learn:
>
> Is there a benefit of using LMTP for local delivery when using Dovecot?
> Why not use Dovecot LDA (without using LMTP)?
Better scalability, performance, and error handling than is possible
with the pipe-to-command interface.
> In Postfix documen
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:24:57PM +0300, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
> If I pass change `fsspace(".", &fsbuf);' to `fsspace("/", &fsbuf);' it
> works, no oopses, and the messages are received without problems. I
> will make some stress tests later.
>
> So the remaining question is what "." in smtpd co
Hi Viktor,
You are right, for some reason my system has some troubles with
fsspace("/var/spool/postfix", &fsbuf). Possibly, Bastian is right
about my kernel. But I just don't how to fix it.
Any way, Postfix code is OK, and the workaround with
`fsspace("/overlay", &fsbuf)` satisfies me so far.
B
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 04:21:44PM +, myrdhin bzh wrote:
> > From : myrdhin
> > Thank you for your help. I'll try your solution.
>
> Sorry, but i always have "Too many connections, slow down." in my
> /var/log/mail.log.
>
> My Postfix is old (mail_version = 2.1.5) butI am constrained to cor
Hi Reindl,
As far as I can tell, the anvil settings are running at the default
settings in my configuration:-
# postconf -n | grep anvil
# postconf -d | grep anvil
anvil_rate_time_unit = 60s
anvil_status_update_time = 600s
However, the rate limit is set to 40 (default is 50)
# postconf -n | grep
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:32:11PM +0300, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
> Hi Viktor,
>
> You are right, for some reason my system has some troubles with
> fsspace("/var/spool/postfix", &fsbuf). Possibly, Bastian is right
> about my kernel. But I just don't how to fix it.
>
> Any way, Postfix code is OK,
On 06.03.2011 17:21 , Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 03/06/2011 04:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Remy Zandwijk:
Is there a way Postfix can be told to get rid of the domain part if mail is
sent through LMTP?
No. The LMTP protocol, like SMTP requires complete email addresses.
Wietse
Additionally,
On 06.03.2011 19:25 , Wietse Venema wrote:
Nikolaos Milas:
I'm asking trying to learn:
Is there a benefit of using LMTP for local delivery when using Dovecot?
Why not use Dovecot LDA (without using LMTP)?
Better scalability, performance, and error handling than is possible
with the pipe-to-com
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:48:05PM +0100, kapetr wrote:
> [ssmtp_client_iol]
> client = yes
> accept = 10465
> connect = smtp.iol.cz:465
> verify = 3
> CApath = /etc/ssl/certs
Don't use "verify = 3" until you have installed the appropriate
end-point certificate.
> The problem is, that I don't kn
Hallo everyone,
I'd like to write a header_check that'll replace (or delete) the
User-Agent header, only if it comes from someone either sending on a
particular port, or using SMTP-AUTH. (The particular port is possible
since SMTP-AUTH is only allowed on one port only, and disallowed on port
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:36:16PM +0100, JKL wrote:
> Hallo everyone,
>
> I'd like to write a header_check that'll replace (or delete) the
> User-Agent header, only if it comes from someone either sending on a
> particular port, or using SMTP-AUTH.
SMTP is not HTTP. There is no "User-Agent" hea
On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> always_bcc is exactly what I would do
But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers when using
always_bcc and if so, isn't that a problem with respect to most of the
laws mandating email archival?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-03-06 3:48 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> always_bcc is exactly what I would do
>
> But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers
That didn't sound right... should have said... '...aren't some headers
lost...'...
--
Best regar
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:47:01 am Victor Duchovni wrote:
> SMTP is not HTTP. There is no "User-Agent" header in RFC 822 messages.
I don't think its in the spec, but there is in your email:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Brad
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:48:34PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > always_bcc is exactly what I would do
>
> But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers when using
> always_bcc and if so, isn't that a problem with respect to most of
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:04:54AM +1100, Brad Hards wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:47:01 am Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > SMTP is not HTTP. There is no "User-Agent" header in RFC 822 messages.
>
> I don't think its in the spec, but there is in your email:
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Rega
Hi Viktor,
I have tried both statfs() and statvfs() and it shows the similar behaivour.
2011/3/6 Victor Duchovni :
> The "fsspace" function is a Postfix utility function, the underlying
> system interface is either statfs() or statvfs(). You should find
> out which is used on your system and test
Victor Duchovni:
> > The "fsspace" function is a Postfix utility function, the underlying
> > system interface is either statfs() or statvfs(). You should find
> > out which is used on your system and test that...
Denis Shulyaka:
> I have tried both statfs() and statvfs() and it shows the similar
On 3/6/2011 9:08 AM, DTNX/NGMX Postmaster wrote:
On 6 mrt 2011, at 15:08, David Touzeau wrote:
but it seems that postfix did not want to test the authentication
method and pass it's rules trough subnet rules to finally refuse the
connection with a "Client host rejected: Access denied"
[snip]
On 3/5/2011 11:43 PM, Nasser Heidari wrote:
Hi,
I've two Mail servers , one local server running on MS-Exchange and the
other one is my external mail server that my MTA is postfix.
I have setup Postfix as relay agent on Exchange, so all outgoing Emails
is travels through Postfix.
There are also t
On 3/5/2011 9:42 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
Yes, I'll try. I hope that the upstream will accept it, they have a very low
(and weird) rate policy
This thread was helpful for me, too, since I'm trying to make sure our
Postfix settings are compliant with Ya
It carries plenty of meaning. Your email client is Mutt,unless you rewrote the
header.
If it makes it easier, the read my question again but with
/User-Agent/MyOwnMysteryHeaderThatIsRFCCompliemt/
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:04:54AM +1100, Brad Hards wrote: > On Mon, 7
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:49:41PM +0100, J4K wrote:
> It carries plenty of meaning. Your email client is Mutt,unless you
> rewrote the header.
Lets not get into epistemology. There is no standard meaning for
the header in the context of email messages. It should not be added
by MUAs and should n
Thanks Victor,
>> You really should be using 2.7.2 or later.
I would like to use this version now :) But i can't : it will be possible after
servers migrating (waiting 1 month :( ...)
> slow unix - - n - 3 smtp -o
>smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no -o
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:43:54PM +, myrdhin bzh wrote:
> > slow unix - - n - 3 smtp -o
> >smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no -o smtp_destination_concurrency_limit=2
>
> >> The second "-o ..." option is pointless and should be removed.
>
> Ok.
>
> >>
Victor Duchovni put forth on 3/6/2011 3:05 PM:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:48:34PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> always_bcc is exactly what I would do
>>
>> But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers when using
>> always_bcc a
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/6/2011 3:29 PM:
> Postfix uses statfs/statvfs as part of a safety net. If you delete
> the call, then Postfix would waste more bandwidth receiving mail
> that it can't store.
>
> However, if statfs/statvfs are broken, then there are likely to be
> more problems.
>
Really, thank you for your patience :) I have difficulty understanding
perfectly
English...
> No, the *process* limit of "3" is implemented in master(8), which spawns
>processes on demand, up to the process limit. The concurrency limit (parallel
>deliveries to a single destination domain) is
Hello list,
In order to have postfix 2.8.1 feeding email to a ezmlm 1.2.17 mailing
list manager (under Debian/Ubuntu) we have a tentative setup that
goes like described bellow.
I have 2 questions:
1. is there a way to do the same without (the rather expensive)
regexp:/ lists?
2. in case of not be
Hi all,
I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should. I'm trying
to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from att.net
but a Message-ID ending in 'yahoo.com'.
I've got this:
if /^DKIM-Signature: .*; d\=att.net;/i
/
On 03/07/2011 12:07 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Victor Duchovni put forth on 3/6/2011 3:05 PM:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:48:34PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
always_bcc is exactly what I would do
But isn't there a problem
Mark Alan:
> Hello list,
>
> In order to have postfix 2.8.1 feeding email to a ezmlm 1.2.17 mailing
> list manager (under Debian/Ubuntu) we have a tentative setup that
> goes like described bellow.
>
> I have 2 questions:
> 1. is there a way to do the same without (the rather expensive)
> regexp:
On 03/07/2011 12:39 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Hi all,
I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should. I'm trying
to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from att.net
but a Message-ID ending in 'yahoo.com'.
I've got th
On 3/6/2011 5:39 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Hi all,
I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should. I'm trying
to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from att.net
but a Message-ID ending in 'yahoo.com'.
I've got this:
Wietse:
> However, if statfs/statvfs are broken, then there are likely to be
> more problems.
>
> I would recommend against using the file system for
> the email queue.
Instead, use a better file system.
Wietse
On 3/6/2011 5:47 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 03/07/2011 12:39 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Hi all,
I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should.
I'm trying
to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from
att.net
but a Me
Erik de Castro Lopo:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
>
> I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should. I'm trying
> to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from att.net
> but a Message-ID ending in 'yahoo.com'.
>
> I've got this:
>
> i
Stan Hoeppner:
> /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc
>
> @hisdomain.tldcomplia...@archive-mbox-server.his-domain.tld
Nope, that loses the original recipient information.
I already gave the correct answer in the first follow-up.
Wietse
Just out of curiosity, can you try to send mail directly to me?
After you have removed yourself, it should take less than about an hour to
clear from the CBL + PBL.
Then mail should go through.
Received: from 108.234.broadband4.iol.cz (108.234.broadband4.iol.cz
[85.71.234.108])
ap
myrdhin bzh put forth on 3/6/2011 5:33 PM:
> Really, thank you for your patience :) I have difficulty understanding
> perfectly
> English...
>
>
>
>> No, the *process* limit of "3" is implemented in master(8), which spawns
>> processes on demand, up to the process limit. The concurrency limit
Le 05/03/2011 16:32, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> mouss put forth on 3/5/2011 7:20 AM:
>> Le 05/03/2011 00:18, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>
>>> /^.*\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
>>>
>
>> you can simplify that:
>> /\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
Le 07/03/2011 00:39, Erik de Castro Lopo a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running postfix version 2.8.1 from Debian.
>
> I've got basic pcre header checks working as they should. I'm trying
> to reject mail that has a DKIM signature that says its from att.net
> but a Message-ID ending in 'yahoo.com'.
What I would like to do:
Configure my home postfix server (ubuntu) to:
send email from local user accounts
accept external (through my cable modem) smtp requests/relay mail for
only authorized senders
I.E. when I'm using a public internet connection, i'd like to have
my smtp requests go
Hello,
> From: Stan Hoeppner
>
> My spammer RADAR is beeping...
:)
No, it's not SPAM.
My client have a domain (for example clientDomain.tld) and a SMTP server. This
server rewrite all email addresses from firstname.surn...@clientdomain.tld to
firstname.surname-clientdomaine@zedomain.tld
67 matches
Mail list logo
