Hello
I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config file
for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
spf_received_header = yes
spf_mark_only = no
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = peject_spf_invalid_sender,
permit_spf_valid
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config file
for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
spf_received_header = yes
spf_mark_only = no
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = peject_spf_invalid_sender,
Am 18.01.2015 um 06:14 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:02:24AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
better make a bugreport at your distribution
https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an intentiona
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
> I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config
> file
> for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
>
> spf_received_header = yes
> spf_mark_only = no
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = peject_spf_invalid_sender,
>
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:28 schrieb SW:
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config
file
for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
spf_received_header = yes
spf_mark_only = no
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = peject_spf_invalid_se
I hope this question is not too stupid... But I miss the "for" line in
the Received: Header in my Postfix.
I guess it has to do with my SpamAssassin-Configuration. But I don't
know where to start to look.
Here is an example. you see the "for" is in the Received: from cloud9.
Then there are the li
nobswolf:
> I hope this question is not too stupid... But I miss the "for" line in
> the Received: Header in my Postfix.
The "for" clause is not required (RFC 5321 section 4.4). Postfix
adds it if there is **one** RCPT TO command.
Wietse
better make a bugreport at your distribution
https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an intentional
maintainer choice and not a bug.
Scott K
I think its default in a lot of distros. I know it is in openbsd and
Thanks for the help. I have installed the postfix-policyd-spf-python port on
my FreeBSD server and enabled it in the main.cf and master.cf config files
as follows:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service
unix:private/policyd-spf
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody
On January 18, 2015 6:36:51 AM EST, "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
>
>Am 18.01.2015 um 12:28 schrieb SW:
>> Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
>>> I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf
>config
>>> file
>>> for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
>>>
>>> spf_received_
Thanks Scott.
If you look at my previous post you can see that I have installed
postfix-policyd-spf-python but am having DNS timeout issues when I enable
it. I have been looking online for a solition but have come up empty handed
so far!
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.
On 01/18/15 09:07, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
>>> better make a bugreport at your distribution
>>> https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
>> Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an intentional
>> maintainer choice and not a bug.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
> I thi
* James Lockie :
>
> On 01/18/15 09:07, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> >
> >>> better make a bugreport at your distribution
> >>> https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
> >> Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an intentional
> >> maintainer choice and not
On 01/18/15 08:55, James Lockie wrote:
On 01/18/15 09:07, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
better make a bugreport at your distribution
https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an intentional
maintainer choice and not a bu
On 01/18/15 10:03, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
> On 01/18/15 08:55, James Lockie wrote:
>> On 01/18/15 09:07, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> better make a bugreport at your distribution
> https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug repo
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:20:35 -0700 (MST)
SW wrote:
> But I now get the following error in maillog:
> *
> Jan 18 13:26:59 mail policyd-spf[58514]: Action: prepend: Text:
> Received-SPF: Temperror (SPF Temporary Error: DNS Timeout)
> identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.170;
> helo=mail-qc0-f170
Koko Wijatmoko wrote
>
> make sure all requirement policyd-spf is installed. maybe
> you missing DNS python module.
>
> try to run /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf at the console and
> see what happen. check also mail log...
When you install the policyd-spf port on FreeBSD it installs all the
require
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 08:30:29 -0700 (MST)
SW wrote:
> If I run /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf at the console it just does
> nothing? (theres no output)
>
yes, it does not provide any output. it mean policyd-spf
are fine and all requirement python module is ok. ask at
freebsd port maintainer, ask him/h
> better make a bugreport at your distribution
> https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Scott K:
> Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an
> intentional maintainer choice and not a bug.
Edgar Pettijohn:
> I think its default in a lot of distros. I kn
Hi!
At the end of the /etc/postfix/master.cf file (Debian Wheezy)
we have a nice custom PHP script which checks and limits outgoing
emails:
outCustomFilter unix - n n - - pipe
flags=F user=vmail:vmail argv=/etc/postfix/outCustomFilter.php
${recipient}
This script does its checks and if eve
Am 18.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb m...@ruggedinbox.com:
At the end of the /etc/postfix/master.cf file (Debian Wheezy)
we have a nice custom PHP script which checks and limits outgoing emails:
outCustomFilter unix - n n - - pipe
flags=F user=vmail:vmail argv=/etc/postfix/outCustomFilter.php
${re
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> Hi!
> At the end of the /etc/postfix/master.cf file (Debian Wheezy)
> we have a nice custom PHP script which checks and limits outgoing
> emails:
>
> outCustomFilter unix - n n - - pipe
>flags=F user=vmail:vmail argv=/etc/postfix/outCustomFilter.php
> ${recipient}
>
On 2015-01-18 18:43, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
Hi!
At the end of the /etc/postfix/master.cf file (Debian Wheezy)
we have a nice custom PHP script which checks and limits outgoing
emails:
outCustomFilter unix - n n - - pipe
flags=F user=vmail:vmail argv=/etc/postfix/ou
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 07:41:15PM +, m...@ruggedinbox.com wrote:
> Hi ok we double checked and this is the source of an email sent from
> m...@ruggedinbox.com to m...@ruggedinbox.com:
>
>
> Return-Path:
> Delivered-To: m...@ruggedinbox.com
> [...]
>
> so it looks like 'Return-Path: ' is a
On 2015-01-18 19:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 07:41:15PM +, m...@ruggedinbox.com wrote:
Hi ok we double checked and this is the source of an email sent from
m...@ruggedinbox.com to m...@ruggedinbox.com:
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: m...@ruggedinbox.com
[...]
so it lo
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> >> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
> >> flags=R user=debian-spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail
> >> -oi -f
> >> ${sender} ${recipient}
> >
> > This is not final delivery, don't use "R" here. And don't forget "--"
> > before the recipient list.
...
> About
I have contacted the port maintaner but he couldn't help.
Can anyone else assist please?
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/SPF-configurations-tp73872p73898.html
Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
SW:
> I have contacted the port maintaner but he couldn't help.
>
> Can anyone else assist please?
I am pretty certain that policyd-spf does not use Postfix to make
its DNS queries. Therefore, some other mailing list will be more
appropriate.
A quick search on the web shows that your problem is
On 2015-01-18 20:48, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
>> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>> flags=R user=debian-spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail
>> -oi -f
>> ${sender} ${recipient}
>
> This is not final delivery, don't use "R" here. And don't forget "--"
> bef
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> >> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
> >>user=debian-spamd
> >>argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} --
> >> ${recipient}
> >
> > This is better, without "R" flags and with -- before the recipients.
> >
> > The Postfix FILTER_README also recomme
On 2015-01-18 21:17, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
>> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>>user=debian-spamd
>>argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} --
>> ${recipient}
>
> This is better, without "R" flags and with -- before the recipients.
>
> The
Fair enough. Thanks Wietse.
I have done plenty of research online regarding this but still haven't had
much luck. I will contact the developer.
Thanks everyone for the assistance.
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/SPF-configurations-tp73872p73902.html
Sent
> Am 18.01.2015 um 15:20 schrieb SW :
>
> policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
> user=nobody argv=/usr/local/bin/policyd-spf
I use this:
policyd-spf unix -n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/policyd-spf
/etc/python-policyd-spf/policyd-spf.conf
Maybe
Thanks for the suggestion but I have just tried what you mentioned but still
same error in the headers:
Received-SPF: Temperror (SPF Temporary Error: DNS Timeout)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.182;
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/SPF-configurati
Back from travelling...
> On 12 Jan 2015, at 12:00 pm, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Mark Nottingham:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I?d like to insert SMTP headers and/or body content (e.g., using alterMIME)
>> in outgoing e-mails *if* the SMTP connection to the recipient is not
>> protected by TLS.
>>
>> Is this
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> Ok the new rule is:
>
> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>user=debian-spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f -G
> ${sender} -- ${recipient}
You can't put -G between -f and sender. I assumed that you would be
familiar with the way UNIX command-line synt
On 19.01.2015. 0:01, Wietse Venema wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
did a postfix restart (of course) and sent a test email:
There is no such thing as "postfix restart". In other words,
Postfix keeps using the old configuration.
Wietse
Probably ML used init.d script restart facility, w
On 2015-01-18 22:17, KSB wrote:
On 19.01.2015. 0:01, Wietse Venema wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
did a postfix restart (of course) and sent a test email:
There is no such thing as "postfix restart". In other words,
Postfix keeps using the old configuration.
Wietse
Probably ML used
On 2015-01-18 22:01, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
Ok the new rule is:
spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
user=debian-spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f
-G
${sender} -- ${recipient}
You can't put -G between -f and sender. I assumed that you would be
> Am 18.01.2015 um 23:27 schrieb m...@ruggedinbox.com:
>
> Return-Path:
> Delivered-To: m...@ruggedinbox.com
> Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> by ruggedinbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7693331405C7
> for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:23:03 +0100 (CET)
At this
On Sun, January 18, 2015 17:21, SW wrote:
> I don't run a firewall on my server and my router allows ALL outgoing
> traffic. Whats weird is I use RBLs in Postfix which relies heavily on
> DNS and that works 100% but for some reason policyd-spf will not do a
> successful DNS lookup! When running di
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> and the header is still there.
By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
The default setting is:
message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, resent-bcc, return-path
You claim that you removed all the pipe "R" flags. You can verify
that by t
On 01/18/15 10:57, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> better make a bugreport at your distribution
>> https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
> Scott K:
>> Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an
>> intentional maintainer choice and not a bug.
> Edgar Pettijohn:
>
On 2015-01-18 23:35, Christian Rößner wrote:
Am 18.01.2015 um 23:27 schrieb m...@ruggedinbox.com:
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: m...@ruggedinbox.com
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by ruggedinbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7693331405C7
for ; Sun, 18 Ja
On 2015-01-18 23:51, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
and the header is still there.
By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
The default setting is:
message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, resent-bcc, return-path
You claim that you remove
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> > By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
> > The default setting is:
> >
> > message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, resent-bcc, return-path
That is the default setting.
> We tried to use the 'message_drop_headers' parameter in both m
I am not sure about implementing DMARC on my servers.
However, is it worth adding a DMARC record to the DNS? What, if
anything, would it buy us.
If we were to add such a record, what would be the "best" setup/set of
parameters be?
--
John Allen
KLaM
--
H
On 2015-01-19 00:53, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
> The default setting is:
>
> message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, resent-bcc, return-path
That is the default setting.
We tried to use the
On Sun, January 18, 2015 20:14, John wrote:
> I am not sure about implementing DMARC on my servers.
> However, is it worth adding a DMARC record to the DNS? What, if
> anything, would it buy us.
Nothing, unless you have somebody to read the reports and the capacity
to act on them. All DMARC will
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
> Perhaps we could pass ${sender} to our custom script
> and then use sendmail's -f argument to change the Return-Path header ?
The -f argument IS THE RETURN-PATH ADDRESS.
SENDMAIL(1)SENDMAIL(1)
NAME
sendmail -
Hi All
As I learned, setting bounce_size_limit=X, will drop original message of
size X and more from bounce report.
I wonder to know if it is possible in case of dropping oversize bounced
message, include a few first bytes of the original message in the bounce
report.
Best Regards
-payam
James Lockie skrev den 2015-01-18 05:40:
On 01/17/15 22:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:51:30PM -0500, James Lockie wrote:
/var/log/mail.log
postfix/smtpd[1519]: warning: SASL: Connect to
/var/spool/postfix/private/auth failed: No such file or directory
/etc/postfix/ma
Edgar Pettijohn skrev den 2015-01-18 15:07:
I think its default in a lot of distros. I know it is in openbsd and
I'm pretty sure freebsd also.
its not so in gentoo, living on edge ? :=)
ook at stunnel.
The new code is in Postfix 2.12-20150118. This, plus any final
bits of polish, will become an official release in a couple of
weeks or so.
It might be 2.12, or it be 3.0. As for when RedHat might ship it,
no idea. For what it is worth, I believe Debian "jessie"
-Original Message- From: Noel Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:20 AM
You want to conditionally run some extra restrictions based on the
outcome of prior restrictions? Some of the existing policy servers
do weighted scoring, which gives very similar results.
Conditional greyl
55 matches
Mail list logo
