content_filter with external script and virtual_alias_maps

Hi, I would like to configure Postfix to do the following: 1) receive messages for users in a Postgres database and hand those messages to an external script for processing (no traditional mailstore). The server handles mail for only one domain. 2) for a handful of accounts (postmaster, help, roo

Re: Virtual alias address class and no_address_mappings

On 30/12/19 8:42 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: With "ldap", "pgsql" and "mysql" it is generally a good idea to use "proxy:ldap", "proxy:pgsql", ... I agree, but in this particular case I was focusing on the problem at hand. I find on IRC it pays to not always get caught up in every problem I se

Re: content_filter with external script and virtual_alias_maps

Stats Student: > Hi, I would like to configure Postfix to do the following: > > 1) receive messages for users in a Postgres database and hand those > messages to an external script for processing (no traditional > mailstore). The server handles mail for only one domain. Postfix chooses the delive

Re: content_filter with external script and virtual_alias_maps

Wietse Venema: > Stats Student: > > Hi, I would like to configure Postfix to do the following: > > > > 1) receive messages for users in a Postgres database and hand those > > messages to an external script for processing (no traditional > > mailstore). The server handles mail for only one domain.

Re: Virtual alias address class and no_address_mappings

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:52:28PM +1300, Peter wrote: > > The reported symptoms are not consistent with content_filter being set > > for the message. > > Yes, but does it preempt the resolution of whether a recipient exists at > all? I thought that was done in smtpd, not qmgr. I believe there

Re: content_filter with external script and virtual_alias_maps

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:46:50AM -0800, Stats Student wrote: > 1) receive messages for users in a Postgres database and hand those > messages to an external script for processing (no traditional > mailstore). The server handles mail for only one domain. > > 2) for a handful of accounts (postmas

PROXY protocol v2 support

Hello List, I'd like to ask if PROXY protocol v2 is supported by Postfix? Thanks, Tamás

Re: PROXY protocol v2 support

Tam?s G?rczei: > Hello List, > > I'd like to ask if PROXY protocol v2 is supported by Postfix? It's not mentioned in documentation, therefore it is not supported. Ditto for memcached v2 protocol. Wietse

What are these types trying to do?

Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in my log: Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: PREGREET 14 after 0.26 from [182.99.42.88]:49546: EHLO ylmf-

Re: What are these types trying to do?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:32:11PM +0100, Gerben Wierda wrote: > Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in > my log: > > Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from > [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 > Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/post

Re: What are these types trying to do?

On 30/12/2019 22:32, Gerben Wierda wrote: > Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in > my log: > > Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from > [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 > Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: PREG

Re: What are these types trying to do?

Viktor Dukhovni skrev den 2019-12-30 23:46: Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: PREGREET 14 after 0.26 from [182.99.42.88]:49546: EHLO ylmf-pc\r\n https://blog.sys4.de/abwehr-des

Re: What are these types trying to do?

Gerben Wierda: > Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in > my log: > > Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from > [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 > Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: PREGREET 14 after 0.26 from > [18

Re: What are these types trying to do?

> On 30 Dec 2019, at 23:46, Viktor Dukhovni > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:32:11PM +0100, Gerben Wierda wrote: > >> Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in >> my log: >> >> Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[

Re: What are these types trying to do?

Wietse Venema: > Gerben Wierda: > > Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in > > my log: > > > > Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from > > [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168.2.66]:25 > > Dec 30 23:26:10 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: PREGR

Re: What are these types trying to do?

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:20:58AM +0100, Gerben Wierda wrote: > > since the host has no PTR record you can, just in case, add: > > > >reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname > > > > to your smtpd_client_restrictions. > > Yes. Hmm, does that come with a big risk for stopping legitimate mail?

Re: What are these types trying to do?

> On 31 Dec 2019, at 00:11, Allen Coates wrote: > > > > On 30/12/2019 22:32, Gerben Wierda wrote: >> Now that Finally have a postfix back with actual logging, I noticed this in >> my log: >> >> Dec 30 23:26:09 mail postfix/postscreen[16020]: CONNECT from >> [182.99.42.88]:49546 to [192.168

How to get successful delivery reported in miy log?

Trying to get my postfix logging fully in order. When a mail is sent to the outside world, my log shows: Dec 31 01:21:32 mail submission/smtpd[16982]: connect from luna-wifi.rna.nl[192.168.2.89] Dec 31 01:21:33 mail submission/smtpd[16982]: 06C9C19C940A: client=luna-wifi.rna.nl[192.168.2.89], s

Re: What are these types trying to do?

> On 31 Dec 2019, at 00:24, Wietse Venema wrote: > >> These bots are very stupid and very persistent. My maillog file for >> today has 3500 of these, and that is with 6 more hours to go. > 9500 in 13 hours here. With the new settings (ENFORCE) smtpd is spared but I still have this junk in my l

Re: How to get successful delivery reported in miy log?

Gerben Wierda: > Trying to get my postfix logging fully in order. > > When a mail is sent to the outside world, my log shows: > > Dec 31 01:21:32 mail submission/smtpd[16982]: connect from > luna-wifi.rna.nl[192.168.2.89] > Dec 31 01:21:33 mail submission/smtpd[16982]: 06C9C19C940A: > client=lu

Re: How to get successful delivery reported in miy log?

> On 31 Dec 2019, at 01:57, Wietse Venema wrote: > > I remember that you reported a bug where a program cant talk to > postlogd if it opens the postlog socked after dropping privileges. > > I posted a patch for that, but I never heard back if that worked, > and therefore that patch is not part

Re: Virtual alias address class and no_address_mappings

Thanks for looking into this and thank you Peter for reporting my issue to the list. To confirm, the alias is in the last database ( hash:/etc/postfix/virtual_alias_maps ) but the forwarding only works if "receive_override_options = no_address_mappings" is NOT set (commented out). And for the forw

Broken Resource Links

Unfortunately it appears that Patrik Koetter's website is now defunct and the domain has been taken over by someone else completely leaving a number of resources linked to from postfix.org broken including (but probably not limited to): The saslfinger utility linked to from DEBUG_README. The

Re: Virtual alias address class and no_address_mappings

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 06:18:34PM -0800, Stats Student wrote: > Re: content_filter -- yes, I did uncomment this setting when > submitting the configuration to provide a fuller picture of my setup. > However, as you noted, the log entries were generated without the > content_filter set. Apologies

Re: What are these types trying to do?

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 01:50:43AM +0100, Gerben Wierda wrote: > 9500 in 13 hours here. With the new settings (ENFORCE) smtpd is spared but I > still have this junk in my log > > Definitely going to look into pf and blocking geolocations. Accumulation of a pile of ad-hoc filter rules makes your

Re: PROXY protocol v2 support

Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to migrate to a setup where I'm behind a load balancer that only speaks v2. Yours, Tamás On 12/30/19

Re: PROXY protocol v2 support

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tamás Gérczei wrote: > Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my > experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask > whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to > migrate to a setup where I'm