Send a BCC based on header check after receiving mail back from amavis-new

2019-01-01 Thread Admin Beckspaced
Hello there, first, all the best wishes for 2019! Let it be a good new year for all of us ;) I'm running a SuSE Box with postfix version 3.2.0 I also do SPAM checking via amavis-new and spamassassin after the mail passes postscreen it's directed to amavis-new amavis-new then re-injects the mail

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread John Fawcett
On 30/12/2018 20:20, John Fawcett wrote: > On 30/12/2018 18:05, Wietse Venema wrote: >> John Fawcett: >>> On 30/12/2018 01:19, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> Here's a revised patch implementing the above logging. >>> >>> I did not take out the existing pipelining logging since it provides >>> additional

Re: Send a BCC based on header check after receiving mail back from amavis-new

2019-01-01 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Admin Beckspaced wrote: > If amavis-new detects some spam it will add headers like: > based on those tags I would like to send a BCC to my spam collecting > s...@address.com for further inspection and review. Ask amavisd-new to quarantine the mail. Depend

Re: Send a BCC based on header check after receiving mail back from amavis-new

2019-01-01 Thread Wietse Venema
Admin Beckspaced: > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#milter_header_checks This may not work. The header_checks BCC was feature was added in Postfix 3.0, many years after Milter support was implemented in Postfix 2.3, and I don't think that there is a BCC handler for the end-of-data phase. It

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > >> JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. > >> A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask > >> field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, > >> plaintext, relay, unverified-address, unknown-user, access-deny, > >> dnsbl, tl

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread John Fawcett
On 01/01/2019 17:56, Wietse Venema wrote: > John Fawcett: JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, plaintext, relay, unverified-addres

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > On 01/01/2019 17:56, Wietse Venema wrote: > > John Fawcett: > JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. > A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask > field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, > plaintext

Canonical?

2019-01-01 Thread Me
In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or is orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by IANA and there i

Re: Canonical?

2019-01-01 Thread Ansgar Wiechers
On 2019-01-01 Me wrote: > In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses > the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition. I have always > understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or > is orthodox. When it comes to domain names, the standar

Use relayhost or not ? What is the best strategy ?

2019-01-01 Thread Pierre Couderc
In old days, using relayhost was a good solution for ISPs who declared an IP as dynamic even when it is static (free.fr did that..) . With the inconvenience of ISP smtp IPs being blacklisted because of spammers. Is there a good reason today to use relayhost ? What is the best strategy ? Tha