why does postfix log sometimes "unknown[xx.xx.xx.xx]" when in fact the
reason for the reject is the PTR itself? sadly it's also missing in
the response in such cases and in case it would have been a legit
human person the only relevant debug information is missing
(disclaimer: there are 139 DUNNO
Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
of the sendmail compatability binary?
Background: I'd like to use the existing functionality of
reject_unverified_recipient to verify recipient addresses from teh
command line.
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46
Ralf Hildebrandt skrev den 2014-09-19 11:20:
Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
of the sendmail compatability binary?
sendmail -bv root
Where root here is the address to verify
Background: I'd like to use the existing functionality of
reject_unverified_recip
On 2014-09-18 17:59, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
James Bailey:
Apache and Nginx and log4j give you much greater control over the
format and content of your logs, I was hoping Postfix could offer
the same.
I'm working on making Postfix logging more configurable. In
the past 18 years this has no
Benny Pedersen:
Ralf Hildebrandt skrev den 2014-09-19 11:20:
Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
of the sendmail compatability binary?
sendmail -bv root
sure, simple :-)
but would be nice to simply get a returncode 0/1 instead a message.
I assume that's wh
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
> of the sendmail compatability binary?
sendmail -bt
> Background: I'd like to use the existing functionality of
> reject_unverified_recipient to verify recipient addresses from teh
> command line.
The resul
Wietse Venema:
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
> > of the sendmail compatability binary?
>
> sendmail -bt
>
> > Background: I'd like to use the existing functionality of
> > reject_unverified_recipient to verify recipient addresses from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18-09-14 17:28, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Tom Hendrikx:
However, it seems that the error message is only sent in the
smtp dialog (554 5.4.0 Error: too many hops), postfix logging
does not show anything. All I get in non-verbose logging
li...@rhsoft.net:
> why does postfix log sometimes "unknown[xx.xx.xx.xx]" when in fact the
> reason for the reject is the PTR itself? sadly it's also missing in
> the response in such cases and in case it would have been a legit
> human person the only relevant debug information is missing
>
> (di
On 18. Sep 2014, at 19:01 Uhr, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ray Davis:
>> A customer wants a mail relay for testing to SAP applications. It should
>> take all relayed email and save it to a local mailbox (or forward it to
>> another email address) - but it should not actually send the emails furthe
Does anyone know when smtputf8 till be available in stable release?
That would be really good to have implemented.
--
Александр Егоров (Alexander Yegorov)
Am 19.09.2014 um 13:28 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>> why does postfix log sometimes "unknown[xx.xx.xx.xx]" when in fact the
>> reason for the reject is the PTR itself? sadly it's also missing in
>> the response in such cases and in case it would have been a legit
>> human person th
wietse:
sendmail -bt
Whoops, -bt isn't documented :-)
Andreas
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:34:11PM +0200, A. Schulze wrote:
>
> wietse:
>
> >sendmail -bt
> Whoops, -bt isn't documented :-)
That's because it is "sendmail -bv".
--
Viktor.
On 9/19/2014 3:37 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> why does postfix log sometimes "unknown[xx.xx.xx.xx]" when in fact the
> reason for the reject is the PTR itself? sadly it's also missing in
> the response in such cases and in case it would have been a legit
> human person the only relevant debug inf
Am 19.09.2014 um 15:55 schrieb Noel Jones:
> On 9/19/2014 3:37 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> why does postfix log sometimes "unknown[xx.xx.xx.xx]" when in fact the
>> reason for the reject is the PTR itself? sadly it's also missing in
>> the response in such cases and in case it would have been a
> Does anyone know when smtputf8 [w]ill be available in stable release?
> That would be really good to have implemented.
It will be available when Posftfix 2.12 becomes the stable release,
expected early 2015.
Initially SMTPUTF8 will be more useful for receiving mail than for
sending mail, becaus
Ray Davis:
>
> On 18. Sep 2014, at 19:01 Uhr, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Ray Davis:
> >> A customer wants a mail relay for testing to SAP applications. It should
> >> take all relayed email and save it to a local mailbox (or forward it to
> >> another email address) - but it should not actual
Thank you for info about expected date of release.
Yes, I realize that new feature would be more useful for receiving
mail - this is what I am targeting on.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Does anyone know when smtputf8 [w]ill be available in stable release?
>> That would
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Perhaps you can use a REDIRECT action in a check_sender_access map?
> That will override all envelope recipients, and has no effect on
> existing message headers.
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions = check_sender_access maptype:mapfile
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can use a REDIRECT action in a check_sender_access map?
> > That will override all envelope recipients, and has no effect on
> > existing message headers.
> >
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions = check_
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:51:57AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I tried to avoid REDIRECT, as it applies to all recipients of a
> > message, which might include more than just the particular customer.
> > If no message is ever sent to the users who need this and others
> > at the same time, the
Wietse Venema:
> I am getting close to implementing {} for grouping options and for
> quoting arguments, because splitting on space/comma does not always
> work well. This would allow more natural main.cf syntax such as:
> pipemap:{map_1, ..., map_n}, join:{map_1, ..., map_n}{options},
> master.cf
I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
the local system which cause the mail to try to be forward to
localhost.com. Obviously I've made a big error somewhere, but I can't
track it down
Sep 19 22:52:36 www postfix/error[11778]: 26479161244:
to=, orig_to=, relay=non
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:58:17PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
> the local system which cause the mail to try to be forward to
> localhost.com. Obviously I've made a big error somewhere, but I can't
> track it down
Your mist
25 matches
Mail list logo
