Hi,
Sorry, I have taken long to reply ...
Here is my postconf output :
mailgate:~ # postconf -n
canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
debug_peer_list = 173.225.251.221
di
On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2012 13:30, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
On 2012-03-04 09:20, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> I am running a small Postfix ser
Please do not top-post your replies. Thank you.
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:23:51PM +0530, santosh malavade wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ansgar Wiechers
> wrote:
> > On 2012-02-28 santosh malavade wrote:
> > > In my mail server, i have enabled sender access using the
> > > following p
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:12:00AM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen
> > wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >>> On 04.03.2012 13:30, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> On
On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> ...
> Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> explain why the ISP would not know.
I would be horrified is this turned out to be the cause.
Without dee
Rod Dorman:
> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > ...
> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> > explain why the ISP would not know.
>
> I would be horrified is this turned out to
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0500, Rod Dorman wrote:
> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > ...
> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> > explain why the ISP would not know.
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:06:26AM -0600, I wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0500, Rod Dorman wrote:
> > On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > > complaints and implemented this redirection u
Dear postfix-users,
I'm looking at implementing a tricky policy, of rewriting sender
address conditionally on a combination of the client's IP address, and
the result of a map lookup of the return-path (in LDAP, as it happens).
I understand how to chain smtpd restrictions, but I'm stuck on makin
Is there any postfix configuration that will allow rejected mail to be
viewed or mail from a certain user to be saved despite reject/accept
status for debugging? Postfix is blocking an incoming message saying
mx1 postfix/cleanup[7139]: 6F3FBE4079: reject: header From: "ts2"
from mta319.sina.
On 3/5/2012 1:08 PM, James Chase wrote:
> Is there any postfix configuration that will allow rejected mail to be
> viewed or mail from a certain user to be saved despite reject/accept
> status for debugging? Postfix is blocking an incoming message saying
>
> mx1 postfix/cleanup[7139]: 6F3FBE4079:
Ben Rosengart:
> Dear postfix-users,
> I'm looking at implementing a tricky policy, of rewriting sender
> address conditionally on a combination of the client's IP address, and
> the result of a map lookup of the return-path (in LDAP, as it happens).
>
> I understand how to chain smtpd restricti
Hi,
I'm on Postfix 2.5.6 and implementing TLS. I'm having difficulties to
understand the difference between "verify" and "secure".
What I've got on the client side:
/etc/hosts:
192.168.1.1 s2.mydomain.de
/etc/postfix/main.cf
disable_dns_lookups = yes
smtp_tls_loglevel =
On Monday, March 5, 2012, 12:06:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Rod Dorman:
>> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
>> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
>> > explain why the ISP
Robert Dahlem:
> 366AE26E2B: to=, relay=s2.mydomain.de[192.168.1.1]:25,
> ..., dsn=4.7.5, status=deferred (Server certificate not verified)
> ==
>
> So my understanding of the difference between "verify" and "secure"
> seems to be wro
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 01:25:36PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ben Rosengart:
>
> > I understand how to chain smtpd restrictions, but I'm stuck on making
> > canonical(5)ization conditional on the output of the restrictions.
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> If you need to deliver a diff
On 3/5/2012 1:22 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Read the message more closely: 'reject: header From: "ts2"'
Thanks, I was thinking these two things were separate statements but yes
of course the From address is of a different syntax and appears later in
the output.
Do you have a header
Ben Rosengart:
> > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > form to that specific external form.
>
> So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport x and
> x_generic_maps, and then transport y and y_generic_maps for form y, etc?
Yes. I did context
James Chase:
> OK, I do now see the rule that is blocking this. But shouldn't it be
> possible to create a whitelist of users that overrides this check?
One message can have multiple recipients. Therefore, header_checks
can't be recipient dependent.
Wietse
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:27:31PM -0500, James Chase wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 1:22 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> >Read the message more closely: 'reject: header From: "ts2"'
> Thanks, I was thinking these two things were separate statements
> but yes of course the From address is of a diff
On 2012-03-05 15:53, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:12:00AM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen
>>> wrote:
On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 04.03.2012 13
On 3/5/2012 2:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
You might do better if you told us what you're trying to do. What
problem are you trying to solve with this?
These checks are rather legacy -- I think probably a general set of
rules from someones posting here once upon a time. This particular check
was blo
2012/3/5 Stanisław Findeisen :
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on users)
> and that this is probably the government who ordered that. This is
> Europe (Poland) but do you think such things are unc
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:44:57 +0100
Stanisław Findeisen articulated:
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on
> users) and that this is probably the government who ordered that.
> This is Europe (Poland)
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.8.9.html]
Postfix stable release 2.8.9 is available. This contains fixes that
are already part of Postfix 2.9 and 2.10.
* The "change header" milter request could replace the wrong
Wietse Venema:
> In summary, there are two orthogonal features that should not be
> mixed up:
>
> - routine logging, which currently does not exist for permit actions.
> This requires one-time infrastructure code for "permit" logging,
> and calls to that infrastructure from a half-dozen strategic
On 3/5/2012 1:44 PM, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on users)
> and that this is probably the government who ordered that. This is
> Europe (Poland) but do you think su
On 2012-03-05 santosh malavade wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access,
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access
> reject
Rob already said all there is to say about this. Fix it.
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.1/8 , 192.168.40.0/
Is it possible to:
1. Rewrite the sender based on the destination? Particular example -
using a fax-to-email service, only one email address is allowed to be
used. So I want any message addressed TO "xxx...@faxpeople.com" to
be sent FROM "designatedu...@mydomain.com" (from a valid clien
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ben Rosengart:
> > > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > > form to that specific external form.
> >
> > So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport x and
> > x_generic_maps, a
On 3/5/2012 5:53 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Is it possible to:
>
> 1. Rewrite the sender based on the destination? Particular example
> - using a fax-to-email service, only one email address is allowed to
> be used. So I want any message addressed TO
> "xxx...@faxpeople.com" to be sent F
Ben Rosengart:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Ben Rosengart:
> > > > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > > > form to that specific external form.
> > >
> > > So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport
hi
i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
rejecting "frankkröt...@example.com"
AFAIK üöä are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
this moment got a notify that a address with this
localpart was removed from a newsletter table where
validation at input-time seems to be missing
signatur
Reindl Harald:
> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
>
> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or domain, or
in any message header. All encodings of non-ASCII in domains and
header valu
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:26:18PM +0100, Robert Dahlem wrote:
> I'm on Postfix 2.5.6 and implementing TLS. I'm having difficulties to
> understand the difference between "verify" and "secure".
These are documented in TLS_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#client_tls_veri
Am 06.03.2012 02:41, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Reindl Harald:
>> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
>> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
>>
>> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
>
> RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or domain, or
> in any message head
Reindl Harald:
> Am 06.03.2012 02:41, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > Reindl Harald:
> >> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
> >> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
> >>
> >> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
> >
> > RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or dom
Hi,
I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dovecot using virtual mailboxes.
I'm now trying to get mailman to work together with Postfix which has turned
out to be harder than I thought. :(
Postfix always logs the error "Relay access denied" when mailman is trying
to deliver an email to a list
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:41:08AM +0100, David Renstrom wrote:
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 03:41:08 +0100
> From: David Renstrom
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Relay access denied problem
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
>
> Hi,
>
> I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dove
Apologies for the misfire. Here's a real post. :)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:41:08AM +0100, David Renstrom wrote:
> I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dovecot using virtual
> mailboxes. I'm now trying to get mailman to work together with
> Postfix which has turned out to be harder than I
Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Take a step back. Please describe the problem (why extra copies
>>> of mail) instead of the solution (alias feature that excludes the
>>> sender).
>>
>> I don't know how to better describe the problem. Maybe the following:
>>
>> John is a new junior employee in a company
41 matches
Mail list logo
