Hello,
As our internal (main) mail server only accepts mail from two mail
gateways and users submit their mail through submission port (587), I am
planning to explicitly allow accepting mail on port 25 ONLY by our mail
gateway servers (and the mail server itself). So, in main.cf:
smtpd_clien
Am 20.01.2012 09:18, schrieb Nikolaos Milas:
> Hello,
>
> As our internal (main) mail server only accepts mail from two mail gateways
> and users submit their mail through
> submission port (587), I am planning to explicitly allow accepting mail on
> port 25 ONLY by our mail gateway servers
>
On 1/20/2012 1:30 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
> W dniu 20.01.2012 01:39, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
>> On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
>>> Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
>>> server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows that they do fsync 1.5x-2x
>>> slower th
Hi all.
I'm looking to filter emails that have a specific return-path address.
As far as I understand, the rule's going to be in header_checks..but can I
REJECT or only DISCARD the message?
Also, what should the regex look like? I tried a quick fix yesterday but
it doesn't seem to be working:
#/^R
* Jack Knowlton :
> Hi all.
> I'm looking to filter emails that have a specific return-path address.
Use check_sender_access
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel.
On Fri, January 20, 2012 11:15 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jack Knowlton :
>> Hi all.
>> I'm looking to filter emails that have a specific return-path address.
> Use check_sender_access
>
Ok, but will it work even though From:<> != Return-Path:<> ?
Also, I was under the impression that to filt
* Jack Knowlton :
> On Fri, January 20, 2012 11:15 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * Jack Knowlton :
> >> Hi all.
> >> I'm looking to filter emails that have a specific return-path address.
> > Use check_sender_access
> >
>
> Ok, but will it work even though From:<> != Return-Path:<> ?
Return-Pat
On Fri, January 20, 2012 11:24 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jack Knowlton :
>> On Fri, January 20, 2012 11:15 am, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> > * Jack Knowlton :
>> >> Hi all.
>> >> I'm looking to filter emails that have a specific return-path
>> address.
>> > Use check_sender_access
>> >
>>
>> O
On 2012-01-20 3:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2012 09:18, schrieb Nikolaos Milas:
As our internal (main) mail server only accepts mail from two mail
gateways and users submit their mail through submission port (587),
I am planning to explicitly allow accepting mail on port 25 ONLY by
our
On 1/20/2012 1:50 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Please excuse me for the somewhat harsh words, but except of the
> alignment issues which should be solved for once when partitioning
> and creating filesystem, the rest is a complete bullshit collected
> from various forums where people does not unde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wietse Venema said the following on 18/01/12 20:23:
> Postfix 2.9.0-RC1 is ready for download. Please report any problems that
> may remain after a few months of cleaning up.
Just a minor issue, I suppose.
A make upgrade upgraded the system as exp
Hi,
Is there a solution to display stats on how many of the incoming smtp
connections were using port 25 and how many of them 587 (or other
custom)? (We are still allowing client connections to port 25.)
We are using pflogsumm (with --smtpd_stats options), but smtp stats
don't differentiate
Luigi Rosa:
> A make upgrade upgraded the system as expected, but at the end right before
> "COMPATIBILITY: editing main.cf, setting inet_protocols=ipv4." message the
> following message appeared 17 times:
>
> /usr/sbin/postconf: warning: /etc/postfix/main.cf: unused parameter:
> strict_mime_domai
Nikolaos Milas:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a solution to display stats on how many of the incoming smtp
> connections were using port 25 and how many of them 587 (or other
> custom)? (We are still allowing client connections to port 25.)
You can make this visible in logging. In master.cf, add the port
Zitat von DN Singh :
Hello group,
I was configuring some restrictions on the Postfix level using access map.
It is in has format.
It is has a pretty good number of domains in it. So, I was wondering, how
large can be the file, without affecting the performance?
These are configured in recipient
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:28:08 +0400, Anton Raytsin wrote:
How to fix it?
smtpd_sender_restrictions=reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,permit_sasl_authenticated,.
swap reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch and
permit_sasl_authenticated
On 20/1/2012 12:55 μμ, Charles Marcus wrote:
# reject all clients not matching anything above, and be damn sure
# to comment out the last reject under recipient_restrictions
#
0.0.0.0/0 reject unauthorized client, please use our MX
You mean to remove "reject" from *smtpd_client_restri
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:24:33 -0500
Simon Brereton articulated:
> On Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM, "Steve Fatula"
> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Robert Fitzpatrick
> >> To: Postfix
> >> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
> >> Subject: Spamcop listed gmail?
> >>
> >> Perhaps this is not the place for this,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:36:14 +0100
Luigi Rosa articulated:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wietse Venema said the following on 18/01/12 20:23:
>
> > Postfix 2.9.0-RC1 is ready for download. Please report any problems
> > that
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:18:33PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/19/2012 9:44 PM, santosh malavade wrote:
> > this pertains to the issue raised by our unit in barbados,
> > having ip address 173.225.251.221, i have included the said
> > ip in debug_peer_list
> >
> > we are getting lot of message
Johan Andersson:
> Jan 19 23:56:21 servername postfix/cleanup[29089]: [ID 947731 mail.crit]
> fatal: fstat flow pipe write descriptor: Value too large for defined data type
The logging comes from this code fragment:
ssize_t mail_flow_get(ssize_t len)
{
const char *myname = "mail_
Hi , to whom it may concern
i seeing a massive spam wave from
yahoo.com and aol.com servers to my most spam beloved domain
seems like the have a lot of "hacked" accounts there present
i have ever such stuff in my logs but it did spike since a few hours
i tmp blocked them via access table, looking
Hi
Thanks for your answer.
I don't think that's the answerbecause i haven't replaced anything really
(well, apart from replacing the binaries with a copy of the ones that were
already running).
I also have those binaries running on two more servers and I don't have this
problem there.
Thi
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:15:35 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip]
>
> In the logging you will see postfix/smtps/smtpd,
> postfix/submission/smtpd and postfix/smtpd.
[snip]
Two things (addressed to the OP and other readers):
1. This will break Pflogsumm. It expects to see "postfix/smtpd
James Seymour:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:15:35 -0500 (EST)
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > In the logging you will see postfix/smtps/smtpd,
> > postfix/submission/smtpd and postfix/smtpd.
> [snip]
BTW this is the default setting as of Postfix 2.9, so it may
show up on distros in a yea
Johan Andersson:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> I don't think that's the answerbecause i haven't replaced
> anything really (well, apart from replacing the binaries with a
> copy of the ones that were already running).
My reply was 100% about the consequences of replacing Postfix binar
Am 20.01.2012 11:55, schrieb Charles Marcus:
>> why are you not only opening from the allowed addresses in
>> the packet-filter (iptables)? so you have no log-entries
>> from spammers all over the world and any protection should
>> generally happen as wide as possible before the service
>
> I a
On 20/1/2012 4:47 μμ, James Seymour wrote:
[snip]
In the logging you will see postfix/smtps/smtpd,
postfix/submission/smtpd and postfix/smtpd.
[snip]
Two things (addressed to the OP and other readers):
1. This will break Pflogsumm. It expects to see "postfix/smtpd"
2. (1) is easil
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:52:21 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> James Seymour:
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:15:35 -0500 (EST)
> > Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > In the logging you will see postfix/smtps/smtpd,
> > > postfix/submission/smtpd and postfix/smtpd.
> > [snip]
>
> BTW
Hi.
The binaries used are compiled on a Solaris server and have been in use since
September 21st last year without any problems until yesterday
when they suddenly stopped working. I replaced them with the exact same
binaries that was used when the server was upgraded on September 21st (didn't
h
On 20 January 2012 09:47, James Seymour wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:15:35 -0500 (EST)
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> In the logging you will see postfix/smtps/smtpd,
>> postfix/submission/smtpd and postfix/smtpd.
> [snip]
>
> Two things (addressed to the OP and other readers):
>
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:16:34PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
> I am evaluating a potential move of a mail server from a dedicated
> server to a cloud-based server instance. I am trying to research
> the cons (I am comfortable with the pros) of doing so.
>
> From what I can tell, we have to conside
Your symptoms indicate a mis-match between the IN-MEMORY master
daemon process, and the ON-DISK executable files for smtpd, cleanup,
etc.
To fix, see the suggestion at the end of my first reply. This is
my final response.
Wietse
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 02:23:00PM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:28:08 +0400, Anton Raytsin wrote:
> >How to fix it?
>
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions=
> > reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,
> > permit_sasl_authenticated,.
>
> swap reject_authenticated_sender_lo
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:00:14 +0200
Nikolaos Milas wrote:
[snip]
>
> Can you please at least provide directions on how to do the fix when
> logging as "postfix/submission/smtpd"??
Quick fix is attached as "pflogsumm_quickfix.txt." There's no line
numbers, as I'm working from the next rev, whic
Wietse Venema:
> Your symptoms indicate a mis-match between the IN-MEMORY master
> daemon process, and the ON-DISK executable files for smtpd, cleanup,
> etc.
Famous last words. This may be the result of a Linux "misfeature"
where a pipe inode number goes over 32bit:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:42:43 -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
swap reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch and
permit_sasl_authenticated
Benny, the only thing that does is to ensure that the sender login
mismatch check is never done, because all authenticated senders are
permitted, regardless of wha
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:19 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:16:34PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>> I am evaluating a potential move of a mail server from a dedicated
>> server to a cloud-based server instance. I am trying to research
>> the cons (I am comfortable with the pros) of d
On 20/1/2012 3:24 μμ, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
# reject all clients not matching anything above, and be damn sure
# to comment out the last reject under recipient_restrictions
#
0.0.0.0/0 reject unauthorized client, please use our MX
You mean to remove "reject" from *smtpd_client_restric
Nikolaos Milas:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 20/1/2012 3:24 ??, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
>
> >> # reject all clients not matching anything above, and be damn sure
> >> # to comment out the last reject under recipient_restrictions
> >> #
> >> 0.0.0.0/0 reject unauthorized
While testing something completely different, I noticed that a newly
installed test machine didn't send any mail:
Jan 20 11:45:27 vhrstest postfix/pickup[9992]: fatal: could not find any active
network interfaces
Jan 20 11:45:27 vhrstest postfix/master[12458]: warning: process
/usr/lib/postfix/p
* Stefan Foerster :
> While testing something completely different, I noticed that a newly
> installed test machine didn't send any mail:
>
> Jan 20 11:45:27 vhrstest postfix/pickup[9992]: fatal: could not find any
> active network interfaces
> Jan 20 11:45:27 vhrstest postfix/master[12458]: warn
Try using strace. See http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html
Wietse
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:44:14 -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
Jan 18 18:20:54 newmail postfix/smtpd[83432]: lost connection after
CONNECT from adsl-99-98-44-85.dsl.lsan03.sbcglobal.net[99.98.44.85]
What would you advise me to further debug this ?
CONNECT is a non SMTP protocol, are you running tor
44 matches
Mail list logo
