Am 22.03.2011 17:34, schrieb J4K:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I had two milters running on postfix: dkim-filter, spamass-milter.
> Both of these worked fine.
> I have added the clamav-milter to the config, but I noticed that now
> the spamass-milter does not 'seem' to do anything.
>
> System set
Hello
I want to discard one address before it will be send
on our smtp outgoing server ( problem with some infected PCs )
Which statement should I use to do so ?
Thanks a lot
* Frank Bonnet :
> Hello
>
>
> I want to discard one address before it will be send
> on our smtp outgoing server ( problem with some infected PCs )
>
> Which statement should I use to do so ?
...
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/notbremse
...
containing:
f.bon...@esiee.fr DISCARD nonsen
Am 23.03.2011 11:19, schrieb Frank Bonnet:
> Hello
>
>
> I want to discard one address before it will be send
> on our smtp outgoing server ( problem with some infected PCs )
>
> Which statement should I use to do so ?
>
> Thanks a lot
if you have infected machines you should block them on t
Am 22.03.2011 22:53, schrieb Simon Brereton:
> The number of javascript email input validations that wouldn't allow + as a
> valid character (particularly the banks) forced me to change
> [recipient_delimiter] to - without any dire consequences...
Possibly not but some environments are fond of
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i wrote:
if /^Message-Id: <(.*)@prefix.*\.domain\.tld>$/ REPLACE Message-Id:
<$1
Andrea Di Mario:
> Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
> of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
> header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
> Message-Id header and i wrote:
>
> if /^Message-Id: <(.*)@prefix.*\.domain\.t
* Andrea Di Mario :
> Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
> of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
> header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
> Message-Id header and i wrote:
>
> if /^Message-Id: <(.*)@prefix.*\.domain
Am 23.03.2011 14:19, schrieb Andrea Di Mario:
> Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
> of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
> header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
> Message-Id header and i wrote:
>
> if /^Message-
Zitat von Matthias Andree :
Am 23.03.2011 14:19, schrieb Andrea Di Mario:
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i w
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Andree
> Subject: Re: Address Tagging in Postfix?
>
> Am 22.03.2011 22:53, schrieb Simon Brereton:
>
> > The number of javascript email input validations that wouldn't
> allow + as a valid ch
# mailq | tail
-- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
# postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
TOTAL 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 074
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> # mailq | tail
> -- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
>
> # postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
> T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280
> 1280+
> TOTAL 74 0 0 0 0 0 0
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:26PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> It should probably handle old and new IDs precisely, but this makes it
> work for me:
>
> --- postfix-2.9-20110320/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl2007-03-08
> 15:39:42.0 +0100
> +++ postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshap
Ralf Hildebrandt:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
> > # mailq | tail
> > -- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
> >
> > # postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
> > T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email
is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses
receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
On debian lenny, postfix version is: 2.5.5-1.1
# telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.
Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email is
> only sent to the rcpt to: address. None
> of the Bcc'ed addresses receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
> rcpt to: n...@example.com
> 250 2.1.5 Ok
> data
> 354 End
Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email
> is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses
> receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See RF
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:55:09PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email is
> only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses receive a
> copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user
Matthias Andree wrote:
Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See RFC5321 [1]
for an explanation; for delivery, it matters ONLY what's in the
I don't misunderstand in as much that I just barely ever had the need to
use bcc.
RCPT TO:
commands, not what's in the DATA section.
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user interface, they have no meaning
in SMTP, Postfix silently deletes Bcc headers, they are not supposed to
be transmitted from the MUA to the MTA.
How come that postfix treats multiple "rcpt to:" commands differently
depending on the pr
Jeroen van Aart:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user interface, they have no meaning
> > in SMTP, Postfix silently deletes Bcc headers, they are not supposed to
> > be transmitted from the MUA to the MTA.
>
> How come that postfix treats multiple "rcpt to:" commands
Am 23.03.2011 21:38, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> How come that postfix treats multiple "rcpt to:" commands differently
> depending on the presence of a "bcc:" header in the data section?
I don't believe that it does that. It's likely some component further
down the delivery path - check the logs
Reindl Harald wrote:
BCC is a header so why you put it in the mail-body?
Because:
"Email header lines are not SMTP commands per se. They are sent in the
DATA stream for a message. Header lines appear on a line by themselves,
and are separated from the body of a message by a blank line."
h
Am 23.03.2011 21:35, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
>> Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See RFC5321 [1]
>> for an explanation; for delivery, it matters ONLY what's in the
>
> I don't misunderstand in as much that I just barely ever had the need to
> use bcc.
Matthias Andree wrote:
I don't believe that it does that. It's likely some component further
down the delivery path - check the logs.
More a case of PEBCAK, I was looking at the wrong test email in this case.
Greetings,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia
Matthias Andree wrote:
You may be aware of it, but I don't believe you've got the full picture yet.
Well I'm getting it now, thank you.
The post service doesn't care what Cc: you write on your letters either,
but only looks at the envelope.
Yes, I assumed an MTA may do some extra processing
> I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO:<> commands to
> accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
It's the other way around, actually.
Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
One has to have a clear understanding of the difference between RFC 822
(the message), and RFC 821
On 2011-03-23 Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
>> I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the
>> email is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed
>> addresses receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Yes. Mail servers de
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
tuning guides. This would only happen once a week or so. The important
part is the need to sen
On 03/23/2011 03:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
tuning guides. This would only happen once a we
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:06:04PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
> hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
> http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning
> guides. This w
Am 23.03.2011 23:06, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
> I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
> hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
> http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
> tuning guides. This would only happen once a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:19:24PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Consider server-class SLC SSD if needed
No need. Perfectly ordinary drives with a battery RAID controller will
do just fine. If the messages are 10kB or less, 100/sec gives 1MB/s which
is also not a problem for typical server netw
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement.
With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS
resolver on the same machine as Postfix? We've got one that's provided
by our colo provider, but it's n
On 03/23/2011 04:49 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement.
With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS
resolver on the same machine as Postfix? We've got one t
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe wrote:
> IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you
> don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns
> server; the difference in the lookup times has a big impact when you're
> sending messages at a high
On 03/23/2011 05:22 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe wrote:
IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you
don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns
server; the difference in the lookup times has a big impac
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:22:49PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe wrote:
> > IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host.
> > If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some
> > sort of caching dns server; the difference in t
Victor Duchovni wrote:
- The destination networks are not throttling your output or
severely limiting your concurrency.
A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and
delivery latencies of those destinations.
Thanks all for some helpful information.
I see
Sorry if i have not explained it correctly in the subject... (Using
postfix 2.5 on debian lenny).
We are testing the "ips.backscatterer.org" setup on one of our servers
and would like to understand the impact before we implement. Is there
any way we can check the ips.backscatterer.org RBL for the
Michael J Wise wrote:
I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO:<> commands to
accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
It's the other way around, actually.
Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
Right, good to know. :-)
As a side note, what's the maximum amount of RCPT T
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
> We are testing the "ips.backscatterer.org" setup on one of our servers
> and would like to understand the impact before we implement. Is there
> any way we can check the ips.backscatterer.org RBL for the IP, then
> put the message on HOLD - rath
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 18:44:15 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> As a side note, what's the maximum amount of RCPT TO:'s postfix will
> accept in one session? Or is this just limited by the amount of
> available RAM and/or some kind of session timeout? Or maybe it's
> limited by how long the counter
Jeroen van Aart:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > - The destination networks are not throttling your output or
> > severely limiting your concurrency.
>
> > A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and
> > delivery latencies of those destinations.
>
> Thanks all f
Jeroen van Aart:
> Michael J Wise wrote:
> >> I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO:<> commands to
> >> accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
> >
> > It's the other way around, actually.
> > Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
>
> Right, good to know. :-)
>
> As a s
Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
.. [CUT] ..
Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug in
a policy service that returns HOLD for IPs listed on the RBL.
Sahil.. i've a similar need, could you put me
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
> Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
> >On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
> >
> >>.. [CUT] ..
> >
> >Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug in
> >a policy service that returns HOL
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
>
>> Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
>> >On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
>> >
>> >>.. [CUT] ..
>> >
>> >Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you mu
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:37:45PM +1300, Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Sahil Tandon
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
> >
> >> Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
> >> >On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
> >> >
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:04 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> As to how to implement this in postfwd, this is not the right forum
> for such a question. http://postfwd.org/ has instructions on how to
> join the postfwd-users mailing list.
What a fantastic piece of software!! Thanks :)
51 matches
Mail list logo
