Hello all,
I'm currently trying to do some address rewriting on my Postfix 2.11.3
(precisely, to use the SRS protocol). The thing is, in order to use
postSRSd for mail forwarding, I have to apply these parameters :
$sender_canonical_maps
$sender_canonical_classes
$recipient_canonical_maps
$re
On 11/20/2016 01:39 PM, L. D. James wrote:
Thanks for the detailed explanation. The "-v" argument works fine.
Also, I'll study the SASL protocol for more details of it's usage.
I used to see the failed usernames in the past. Don't know when it
stopped. But this information is invaluable f
Hello,
In my setup, I’m using the greylisting policy. Now, a spammer tries to send
mail to a nonexistent address. But he still gets the greylisting temp failure
sent:
Nov 21 16:35:42 vanroodewierda.rna.nl postfix/smtpd[21832]: connect from
unknown[186.1.16.66]
Nov 21 16:35:43 vanroodewierda /u
Gerben Wierda:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_sasl_authenticated
> permit_mynetworks
> reject_unauth_destination
> reject_unknown_recipient_domain
> reject_unverified_recipient
You may want to look at these settings (defaults shown):
unverified_recipie
Can anyone help with this please?
On 2016-11-18 21:03, MRob wrote:
Hello,
I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the
delivery agent. I know there will be a difference here in terms of the
envelope information but I'm not familiar enough to know the pitfalls
of this versu
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 17:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Gerben Wierda:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> permit_sasl_authenticated
>> permit_mynetworks
>> reject_unauth_destination
>> reject_unknown_recipient_domain
>> reject_unverified_recipient
>
> You may want to loo
MRob:
> Can anyone help with this please?
Looks like this is not a common use case.
Wietse
Gerben Wierda:
>
> > On 21 Nov 2016, at 17:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > Gerben Wierda:
> >> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> >>permit_sasl_authenticated
> >>permit_mynetworks
> >>reject_unauth_destination
> >>reject_unknown_recipient_domain
> >>reject_unverified_recipient
I am wondering what the various possible types of events postscreen logs. I
checked man postsreen(8) but it doesn’t seem to give them.
I know there are PASS NEW, PASS OLD, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, HANGUP, NOQUEUE,
COMMAND, cache, and DNSBL. Any others I am missing?
Are these documented in some othe
Wietse, sorry, please bear with me here, but this is not easy to understand
(given the complexity of all the settings). And I’m afraid to damage my mail in
the sense that I start refusing legitimate mail.
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 21:17, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Gerben Wierda:
>>
>>> On 21 Nov 201
On Nov 21, 2016, at 11:43 AM, MRob wrote:
> On 2016-11-18 21:03, MRob wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the
>> delivery agent. I know there will be a difference here in terms of the
>> envelope information but I'm not familiar enough to know the pit
I did another test. I changed the recipient restrictions to:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
Here are the line numbers for the remaining two items:
1. Buffer overflow Sourcefile: dns_rr.c, Line: 129, Module: dnsblog
2. Buffer oevrflow Sourcefile: tls_scache.c, Line: 208, Module: smtpd
Thanks,
Mc.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Mc Secuirty wrote:
> Wietse:
>
> Thank you ver
On 11/21/2016 2:46 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
> I am wondering what the various possible types of events postscreen logs. I
> checked man postsreen(8) but it doesn’t seem to give them.
>
> I know there are PASS NEW, PASS OLD, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, HANGUP, NOQUEUE,
> COMMAND, cache, and DNSBL. Any others
On 2016-11-21 11:58, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
MRob:
Can anyone help with this please?
Looks like this is not a common use case.
I'm looking for conceptual clarification, as in what, if any, difference
the envelope fields have when a message is inspected at the
content_filter scope, both
On 2016-11-21 13:06, @lbutlr wrote:
On Nov 21, 2016, at 11:43 AM, MRob wrote:
On 2016-11-18 21:03, MRob wrote:
Hello,
I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the
delivery agent. I know there will be a difference here in terms of
the
envelope information but I'm not fam
I see that there is careful memory allocation done for DNS_RR and
TLS_SCACHE_ENTRY in in dns_rr.c and tls_scache.c respectively so that
buffer overflow is not caused. However, a confirmation would be great.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Mc Security wrote:
> Here are the line numbers for the
> On Nov 21, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Mc Security wrote:
>
> I see that there is careful memory allocation done for DNS_RR and
> TLS_SCACHE_ENTRY in in dns_rr.c and tls_scache.c respectively so that buffer
> overflow is not caused. However, a confirmation would be great.
I think the correct protoco
On Nov 21, 2016, at 3:30 PM, MRob wrote:
> Appreciate the reply, but I wasn't asking how to set it up. I thought my
> question made it clear I was asking about the pros/cons of the placement of
> SA in the mail flow.
No, that wasn’t clear. At least not to me.
The main advantage to checking spa
Hey Guys,
this issue has decayed a bit but I now finally found the time (and the
nerves) to integrate the fix in my system.
I'm running Ubuntu 16.04 and trying not change to many things and be
able to have clean comparison I applied the patch to the apt sources and
only replaced the postfix-my
Mc Security:
> Here are the line numbers for the remaining two items:
>
> 1. Buffer overflow Sourcefile: dns_rr.c, Line: 129, Module: dnsblog
False positive. Veracode does not understand how the code works.
> 2. Buffer oevrflow Sourcefile: tls_scache.c, Line: 208, Module: smtpd
Same thi
Gerben Wierda:
> I did another test. I changed the recipient restrictions to:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> reject_unauth_pipelining,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> permit_sasl_authenticated,
> permit_mynetworks,
Due to permit_mynetworks, sending mail from a "local"
On 2016-11-21 16:15, @lbutlr wrote:
On Nov 21, 2016, at 3:30 PM, MRob wrote:
Appreciate the reply, but I wasn't asking how to set it up. I thought
my question made it clear I was asking about the pros/cons of the
placement of SA in the mail flow.
No, that wasn’t clear. At least not to me.
T
So I have a problem in that using egrep and python my regexp works fine.
However, when I implement this regexp in procmail it does not. I have
handled the space-before-backslash issue already... but is there another
nuance I am not understanding? Is there a way to have procmail process
an "eml"
24 matches
Mail list logo
