I just implemented a first version of a accounting plugin for
mtpolicyd:
https://www.mtpolicyd.org/documentation.html#Mail::MtPolicyd::Plugin::Accounting
github project: https://github.com/benningm/mtpolicyd
I'm currently testing it on a small postfix installation with the
following setup:
Vhos
Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4 from
being
abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
I found out that it receives these messages accindetally, when I
tested my configuration.
The root@localhost must be accessible, when the mail comes f
Tomas Macek:
> Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4 from
> being
> abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
> I found out that it receives these messages accindetally, when I
> tested my configuration.
> The root@localhost must be accessib
Am 23.12.2014 um 14:23 schrieb Tomas Macek:
I believe the right cfg place is smtpd_recipient_restrictions where I
have this:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
check_recipient_access
Questions:
---
1) is the smtpd_recipient_restrictio
On 12/23/2014 03:23 PM, Tomas Macek wrote:
> Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4
> from being abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email
> address. I found out that it receives these messages accindetally,
> when I tested my configuration.
> The root@lo
Tomas Macek:
Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4 from
being
abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
I found out that it receives these messages accindetally, when I
tested my configuration.
The root@localhost must be accessible, when the m
Am 23.12.2014 um 15:03 schrieb Tomas Macek:
Tomas Macek:
Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4 from
being
abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
I found out that it receives these messages accindetally, when I
tested my configuration.
The
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 23.12.2014 um 15:03 schrieb Tomas Macek:
> Tomas Macek:
> > Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4
> > from
> > being
> > abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
> > I found out that
I'm trying to move from a CentOS 6.x server that uses Postfix 2.6.6 to a
CentOS 7 server that uses version 2.10.1. I'm running the same
configuration that works on the old setup, however, Postfix won't deliver
the message (via LMTP) and instead says:
postfix/local[24338]: warning: error looking up
Am 23.12.2014 um 16:06 schrieb Stephen Ingram:
I'm trying to move from a CentOS 6.x server that uses Postfix 2.6.6 to a
CentOS 7 server that uses version 2.10.1. I'm running the same
configuration that works on the old setup, however, Postfix won't
deliver the message (via LMTP) and instead says
Stephen Ingram:
> I'm trying to move from a CentOS 6.x server that uses Postfix 2.6.6 to a
> CentOS 7 server that uses version 2.10.1. I'm running the same
> configuration that works on the old setup, however, Postfix won't deliver
> the message (via LMTP) and instead says:
>
> postfix/local[24338
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stephen Ingram:
> > I'm trying to move from a CentOS 6.x server that uses Postfix 2.6.6 to a
> > CentOS 7 server that uses version 2.10.1. I'm running the same
> > configuration that works on the old setup, however, Postfix won't deliver
> >
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> I thought once
> the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> delivery, then mailbox_transport would be followed which in my case sends
> via lmtp. Is that not correct?
Since mailbox_transport comes after .
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>
> > I thought once
> > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be followed which in my case sends
> > via lmtp. Is that not correct?
>
> Sinc
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:09:04PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> >
> > > I thought once
> > > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be f
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>
> > I thought once
> > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be followed which in my case sends
> >
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> >
> > > I thought once
> > > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be followed
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:09:04PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Viktor Dukhovni:
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> > >
> > > > I thought once
> > > > the address was rewritten and the mail was hande
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:31:15AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> > > > I thought once
> > > > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > > > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be followed which in my case
> > > > sends
> > > > via lmtp. Is that not correct?
> > >
Stephen Ingram:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Viktor Dukhovni > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> >
> > > I thought once
> > > the address was rewritten and the mail was handed over to local for
> > > delivery, then mailbox_transport would be foll
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:39:52PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I'm using virtual aliases. Wouldn't that cause message to be handed off to
> > virtual_mailbox or mailbox_transport?
>
> The routing depends on the recipient address, after optional
> address rewriting.
>
> In your case it would
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:39:52PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > I'm using virtual aliases. Wouldn't that cause message to be handed
> off to
> > > virtual_mailbox or mailbox_transport?
> >
> > The routing depends on the recipient ad
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:11:43AM -0800, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> I always used
> mailbox_transport instead of virtual_transport as I thought the latter was
> for virtual_mailbox_maps only. From your explanation, it appears as though
> virtual_mailbox_maps could be used in my case too.
It is a re
We have an smtpd_helo_restriction of reject_unknown_helo_hostname that
regularly fails for one of our (very) large correspondents. As it turns out
the reason is quite legitimate, the helo identity fqdn issued from several of
their email gateways does not match up to the IP address that they are u
James B. Byrne:
> 192.168.0.1 IN PTR mail1.domain.tld.
> 192.168.0.1 IN PTR mail2.domain.tld.
> 192.168.0.1 IN PTR mail3.domain.tld.
For that to work EVERY name needs to resolve to 192.168.0.1.
Postfix is not going to try all possible reverse mappings.
Depending on the system library i
Am 23.12.2014 um 14:32 schrieb James B. Byrne:
We have an smtpd_helo_restriction of reject_unknown_helo_hostname that
regularly fails for one of our (very) large correspondents.
you can't use this seriously beause of too many people not able or
willing to setup their basic prerequisites for a
Hello,
We have a development server where we want to simply log the entire header to a
file and discard the email. I realize with the smtp_header_checks you cannot
discard the message and I am unsure if you could log the entire header to a log
file. I was thinking about building a custom filt
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Fred Newtz wrote:
> We have a development server where we want to simply log the
> entire header to a file and discard the email. I realize with the
> smtp_header_checks you cannot discard the message and I am unsure
> if you could log the entire header t
Viktor Dukhovni:
> The Morris worm had:
>
> #define MAIL_FROM "mail from:\n"
> #define MAIL_RCPT "rcpt to:<\"| sed \'1,/^$/d\' | /bin/sh ; exit 0\">\n"
>
> to delete the header and execute the body, you can surely do the converse.
>
> aliases:
> logheader: "|sed -ne 'p;/^$/q'>>
Thanks, Nick and Mr Venema,
I put the following debug and command_filter in main.cf:
smtpd_command_filter = pcre:/etc/postfix/command_filter
notify_classes = resource, software, protocol, policy
/etc/postfix/command_filter:
/^(MAIL\s+FROM:).+(<.+>)/ $1$2
In postmaster email, I got:
Out:
Am 24.12.2014 um 02:32 schrieb steve zeng:
I put the following debug and command_filter in main.cf:
smtpd_command_filter = pcre:/etc/postfix/command_filter
notify_classes = resource, software, protocol, policy
/etc/postfix/command_filter:
/^(MAIL\s+FROM:).+(<.+>)/ $1$2
In postmaster ema
31 matches
Mail list logo
