Hi List,
I need to rewrite incoming headers for one email address, how to do this?
The main reason to do this is jira that accepts email only from one defined
emails
and I need to import mailinglist mails to that system.
for example I need to rewrite centos mailing-list from header to from
my@e
Dear Postfix Community,
after reading the documentation "Postfix Architecture Overview", I thought that
"qmgr" would handle operations between the different queues correctly and
despite any connection or performance issues.
Our company uses Mailman via Postfix on a regular basis for mailings wi
On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:02, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> I need to rewrite incoming headers for one email address, how to do this?
>
> The main reason to do this is jira that accepts email only from one defined
> emails
> and I need to import mailinglist mails to that system.
>
> for example I need
Schwartz, Tobias (DAV):
> Do you know about any behavior of the qmgr, that could explain the
> duplicate transmission of messages?
You report a problem, and therefore it is your responsibility to
demonstrate that your claim is correct.
To prove that your claim is correct, you need to show logfile
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> I really should have figured this out ages ago, but...
>
> Quite simply, there exits a small number of organizations that
> run afoul of my various smtpd_recipient_restrictions and/or my
> smtpd_helo_restrictions, but from which I need to be able to
> receive mail anyway.
Schwartz, Tobias (DAV):
> Dear Wietse,
>
> thank you for your reply!
> You can find the log entries for a particular recipient below:
>
> Jun 5 15:25:18 172 postfix/smtpd[28500]: 9EE2B185BF0: client=unknown[::1]
> Jun 5 15:25:18 172 postfix/cleanup[29770]: 9EE2B185BF0:
> message-id=<1233AD723A
Dear Wietse,
I apologize "accusing" Postfix.
Looking at your answers, I think I have to investigate whether and why MailMan
has put messages with the same message-id and same recipient multiple times to
the smtp deamon.
Kindest regards,
Tobias
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-p
Schwartz, Tobias (DAV):
> Dear Wietse,
>
> I apologize "accusing" Postfix.
> Looking at your answers, I think I have to investigate whether and
> why MailMan has put messages with the same message-id and same
> recipient multiple times to the smtp deamon.
When a mailing list has many recipients,
Peter schrieb:
> On 06/08/2014 08:17 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
>> MX and Submission machine are the same postfix instance (and even the
>> same worker process on port 25), it won't work. I'm planning to maybe
>> change this in the future. But as with migrating all people to not submit
>> on port 25 i
On 6/10/2014 1:24 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
> And those silly autodetection of older MUAs sticks to port 25
unencrypted. So even new customers who redo
> their installations on their own silently go back to port 25.
So... why on earth are you allowing UNENCRYPTED AUTH at ALL, let alone
on port 2
On 6/10/2014 1:24 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 10.06.2014 05:02, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
>> Yes. And if you have other separate smtpd_foo_restrictions sections you
>> should move those restriction parameters under
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions as well. This will give you precise
>> control ove
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 01:43:50PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say that, but this is wrong. All smtpd_*_restrictions give
> > precise control over all the restrictions and their order, if you move
>
> "will give you precise control". Note "you", meaning the user, not
> Postfix.
10.06.2014 22:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/10/2014 1:24 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
>> it all to one stage it becomes clumsier. Also, moving stuff which should
>> be run at connect or hello time to recipient time is kinda wrong.
>
> Postfix performs delayed evaluation of restrictions by defa
Hello,
Subject: Problem understanding check_client_access and tcp_table
I have a problem understanding how to properly use check_client_access with
an external tcp_table (daemon)
in my main.cf i have put the following:
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access tcp:[127.0.0.1]:1
The l
RE: the after-queue, simple filter example
Just trying to figure out how it works.
I have a feeling I don't fully understand the full implications of
"after-queue".
>From master.cf:
# custom filter
filter unix- n n - 10 pipe
flags=Rq user=filter null_se
On 6/10/2014 3:05 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote:
>
> RE: the after-queue, simple filter example
>
> Just trying to figure out how it works.
> I have a feeling I don't fully understand the full implications of
> "after-queue".
>
> From master.cf:
> # custom filter
> filter unix- n
Kai Krakow:
> BTW: In this context, what's the best approach to put mailboxes on a
> separate machine? Let the LDA drop mails into NFS mounts, or let postfix
> transport the mails via transport_map into a machine which hosts the LDA
> (dovecot in our case)?
I recommend Dovecot via LMTP, but NFS
On 6/10/2014 2:59 PM, uffe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Subject: Problem understanding check_client_access and tcp_table
>
> I have a problem understanding how to properly use check_client_access with
> an external tcp_table (daemon)
>
> in my main.cf i have put the following:
>
> smtpd_client_restricti
uffe:
> smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access tcp:[127.0.0.1]:1
>
> But what I was expecting was to receive lookup "get" requests with the raw
> source ip address as argument - as "unknown" is not of much use for spam
> analysis.
There will be no "get client-address" query when the
Thanks for your swift answers
I'll try the recommendations immediately.
English is not my native language - but it did not occour to me from reading
that documentation for tcp_table lookups that returning 500 would be
aproprialte - I would have believed that is would have stopped the while
delive
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:37:34PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/10/2014 3:05 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote:
> >
> > RE: the after-queue, simple filter example
> >
> > Just trying to figure out how it works.
> > I have a feeling I don't fully understand the full implications of
> > "after-queue".
> >
After trying various combinations of things in
main.cf and master.cf, I find that, using the script
below, if the mail reaches the filter script, the
resulting mail message bounces (too many hops)
but the filter has processed the input.
If I turn content_filter off in main.cf the
mail gets delive
Now I got it working - thanks
Are tcp_table lookup "deamon" instances supposed to exit themselves - for
every lookup - or can postfix reuse them "persistent"
I'm having a hard time understanding the comment in the bugs section: The
client does not hang up when the connection is idle for a l
On 6/10/2014 3:39 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Kai Krakow:
>> BTW: In this context, what's the best approach to put mailboxes on a
>> separate machine? Let the LDA drop mails into NFS mounts, or let postfix
>> transport the mails via transport_map into a machine which hosts the LDA
>> (dovecot in
On 6/10/2014 6:32 PM, uffe wrote:
>
> Now I got it working - thanks
>
> Are tcp_table lookup "deamon" instances supposed to exit themselves - for
> every lookup - or can postfix reuse them "persistent"
>
> I'm having a hard time understanding the comment in the bugs section: The
> client does
On 6/10/2014 5:45 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote:
>
> After trying various combinations of things in
> main.cf and master.cf, I find that, using the script
> below, if the mail reaches the filter script, the
> resulting mail message bounces (too many hops)
> but the filter has processed the input.
>
> If
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:45:02PM -0500, Jay G. Scott wrote:
> After trying various combinations of things in
> main.cf and master.cf, I find that, using the script
> below, if the mail reaches the filter script, the
> resulting mail message bounces (too many hops)
> but the filter has processed
27 matches
Mail list logo
