Good day to all!
So I have just had another look at my e-mail server regarding my situation, and
I found something very odd.
Postfix seems to be unable to send e-mail to IPv4 addresses, but it can send
e-mail to IPv6 addresses.
This is odd because Postfix is configured to use an IPv4 inte
Good day,
On mar, 2023-05-02 at 09:19 +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> Postfix seems to be unable to send e-mail to IPv4 addresses, but it
> can send e-mail to IPv6 addresses.
So, your machine running Postfix *has* a global IPv6 address.
> This is odd because Postfix is configur
On Tue, 2 May 2023, Victoriano Giralt via Postfix-users wrote:
[very good information and advice]
Just show/check the output of "ip a" if you are on Linux, please, you
will be surprised.
Maybe also add "ip r", as this would clarify whether the default route is the
VPN or not (and apparentl
"Wrong! The las line in your attachment (very uncomfortable way for
sharing information that need quoting), states:
inet_protocols = all
You need to have a thorugh read of Postfix documentation."
Why is it uncomfortable?
No I don't need to read the documentation. There is a problem with Postfix
Hi, my hosting Njal.la don't permit send email from my postfix server port
number 25 to prevent spam.
But they say that i can use this setup
https://njal.la/docs/postfix-smarthost/
with;
relayhost = [emailserver.tld]:submission
in /etc/postfix/main.cf
My log say bad configuration in relayhost an
May 2, 2023 at 4:42 PM, "pripercat--- via Postfix-users"
wrote:
>
> Hi, my hosting Njal.la don't permit send email from my postfix server port
> number 25 to prevent spam.
>
> But they say that i can use this setup
> https://njal.la/docs/postfix-smarthost/
>
> with;
> relayhost = [emailserve
Hello
I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf':
inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces
The problem is, Postfix is not using this interface and is instead using
another interface to send e-mail.
Is this a bug?
Sincerely,
On mar, 2023-05-02 at 11:18 +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hello
hi,
> I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf':
>
> inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2
>
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces
>
> The problem is, Postfix is not using this i
Dnia 2.05.2023 o godz. 11:18:26 Kolusion K via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf':
>
> inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2
>
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces
>
> The problem is, Postfix is not using this interface and
For sending, it uses (like pretty much any network application) whatever the
TCP stack in your OS chooses.
this may be useful
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_bind_address
"An optional numerical network address that the Postfix SMTP client should bind to
when making an IPv4 conn
Thanks, but it still doesn't work for me with those parameters. The
relayhost value is an email server of my hosting. And I don't have that
information. The njal.la admin refers me to this forum. :(
Cheers ¡
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-use
On mar, 2023-05-02 at 07:14 -0400, pripercat--- via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Thanks, but it still doesn't work for me with those parameters. The
> relayhost value is an email server of my hosting. And I don't have
> that information.
Then, your hosting has to provide you with the username and passwo
On 02-05-2023 13:14, pripercat--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Thanks, but it still doesn't work for me with those parameters. The
relayhost value is an email server of my hosting. And I don't have that
information. The njal.la admin refers me to this forum. :(
If njal.la provides documentation on
Hello list,
Some clients abuse the outgoing smtp server for sending bulk messages.
The messages have the same content of business promotion letter.
Do you know how to stop this behavior?
Thank you.
corey
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I have postscreen implemented on postfix-3.7.3 on fedora37, and not sure I
> understand if it's working properly. Sometimes I see the postscreen/dnsblog
> combination ending with a simple DISCONNECT. In this case, it met the
> 8-point threshold to be rejected, but
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users writes:
> Hello list,
>
> Some clients abuse the outgoing smtp server for sending bulk messages.
> The messages have the same content of business promotion letter.
> Do you know how to stop this behavior?
>
You can not stop it if he/she is paid user.
Instead, you
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
> Hello list,
>
> Some clients abuse the outgoing smtp server for sending bulk messages.
> The messages have the same content of business promotion letter.
> Do you know how to stop this behavior?
Perhaps you can use postfwd (www.postfwd.org) to limit the number
o
On 01.05.23 15:41, Jon LaBadie via Postfix-users wrote:
I've been getting a lot of spam with Date: headers
containing future dates, typically 1 year.
I don't find any header checks that would look for
this type of message. Have I over looked it?
In the meantime I've implemented a script and pr
May 2, 2023 at 4:42 PM, "pripercat--- via Postfix-users"
wrote:
Hi, my hosting Njal.la don't permit send email from my postfix server port
number 25 to prevent spam.
But they say that i can use this setup
https://njal.la/docs/postfix-smarthost/
with;
relayhost = [emailserver.tld]:submission
i
a server that i don't have shell access to atm has, today, started seeing
undelivered mail from only one domain -- *outbound.protection.outlook.com.
apparently, everything else inbound is flowing. and, i'm told, inbound from
outlook.com was working yesterday.
all i've got so far is this log sn
On 02.05.23 09:19, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
So I have just had another look at my e-mail server regarding my situation, and
I found something very odd.
Postfix seems to be unable to send e-mail to IPv4 addresses, but it can send
e-mail to IPv6 addresses.
This is odd because Post
Greetings
I have found some contradicting Postfix documentation and I feel that it is my
duty to make a revelation of it.
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
The inet_interface parameter is described as for receiving connections;
The smtp_bind_address parameter is described as for making
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 09:41:50AM -0400, PGNet Dev via Postfix-users wrote:
> a server that i don't have shell access to atm has, today, started
> seeing undelivered mail from only one domain --
> *outbound.protection.outlook.com. apparently, everything else inbound
> is flowing. and, i'm told,
On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 15:54, Kolusion K via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> Greetings
>
>
> I have found some contradicting Postfix documentation and I feel that it
> is my duty to make a revelation of it.
>
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
>
> The inet_interface param
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 09:54:48AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> What are some domains your server accepts mail for? Do you perhaps
> publish DANE TLSA records and have botched certificate rotation?
See if dropping the DST cross cert from your certificate chain will
help. T
Kolusion K via Postfix-users:
Yesterday you sent a tcpdump trace where Postfix fails to make a
connection from 192.168.2.2:
23:11:38.333669 IP 192.168.2.2.40415 > 47.246.137.47.smtp: Flags
[S], seq 3300139944, win 65280, options [mss 1360,sackOK,TS val
912086021 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], le
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:18:26AM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
> I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf':
>
> inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces
>
> The problem is, Postfix is not using this interfac
Yes, and I also told you how I didn't know what most of the results from
tcpdump meant.
K
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 4:21 pm
> From: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
> To: "Kolusion K"
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: [pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
>
> Kolusio
Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is not the one
set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience is true- the
inet_interfaces parameter has no effect.
K
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 4:36 pm
> From: "Kolusion K"
> To: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-use
Kolusion K:
> Good point. Now that I think about that TCP dump, it did use 192.168.2.2.
>
> I can't see why there is no route. The firewall on the other side
> is set to allow traffic through and it logged blocking traffic
> before I allowed it. Maybe there is a problem with routing.
One reason c
What are some domains your server accepts mail for? Do you perhaps
publish DANE TLSA records and have botched certificate rotation?
See if dropping the DST cross cert from your certificate chain will
help. That root CA has long ago expired.
nothing in that cert chain reports a past date.
wha
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:09:59AM -0400, PGNet Dev wrote:
> what root CA expiry are you referring to?
The DST root, that issued the ISRG X1 cross cert.
> > The "ISRG Root X1" CA no longer needs a cross cert.
>
> it seems that LE still provides them,
>
>https://letsencrypt.org/certificates
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-02 15:28:
perhaps you would want to set up spam filter?
spamassassin has check for date in future and also many other for
spammy signs.
Viktor provided a milter that test it before queue, while spamassassin
is after queue ?
but yes
Original Message
From: Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users [mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:32 AM EDT
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: [pfx] Re: inbound failures only from outbound.protection.outlook.com.
Cert issue in this log?
On Tue,
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is
> not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience
> is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect.
No, it has exactly th
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:54:00AM -0400, PGNet Dev wrote:
> > The DST root, that issued the ISRG X1 cross cert.
>
> https://letsencrypt.org/docs/dst-root-ca-x3-expiration-september-2021/
>
> yikes. missed that by a mile!
>
> >>From my renewal.conf file:
> >
> > [renewalparams]
> > r
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:47:03PM +0200, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-02 15:28:
>
> > perhaps you would want to set up spam filter?
> > spamassassin has check for date in future and also many other for
> > spammy signs.
>
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-02 15:28:
perhaps you would want to set up spam filter?
spamassassin has check for date in future and also many other for
spammy signs.
On 02.05.23 17:47, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Viktor provided a milter that test it be
On 2023-05-02 at 11:47:03 UTC-0400 (Tue, 02 May 2023 17:47:03 +0200)
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Viktor provided a milter that test it before queue, while spamassassin
is after queue ?
SpamAssassin is NOT inherently after-queue. There are at least 4 open
source
Have a couple of FreeBSD VMs running 11.1 and Postfix 3.2.2. Both
VMs are used as MX for the domain.
Using these two for about 1000 clients for one domain to send/receive.
Been working fine for a couple years.
Moving to a new set of VM hosts, so spun up a new VM on FBSD 12.4,
installed via pkg
kwoody--- via Postfix-users:
> The local recipient table has a list of all valid users in the format
> u...@citytel.net. This is rebuilt when needed.
>
> Postifx is appending mail.citytel.net, not citytel.net.
Over the last 25+ years, Postfix appends the domain that is configured
in the myorigin
> kwoody--- via Postfix-users:
> > The local recipient table has a list of all valid users in the format
> > u...@citytel.net. This is rebuilt when needed.
> >
> > Postifx is appending mail.citytel.net, not citytel.net.
>
> Over the last 25+ years, Postfix appends the domain that is configured i
On 5/2/2023 4:21 PM, kwoody--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Log for the nightly cron job run:
03:01:09 mail sendmail[10703]: 342A19Wv010703: from=root, size=14672,
class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<202305021001.342a19wv010...@mail.citytel.net>,
relay=root@localhost
This is sent by Sendmail(TM), not Post
Also look into other possibilities, the DST Root issue is a bit of a
longshot. If you can get an account on Outlook.com, send mail and see
if it bounces with usable diagnostics in the bounce.
i changed the preferred chain here, and for all my domains (thx o/ !). it
certainly didn't hurt.
but
> > Log for the nightly cron job run:
> >
> > 03:01:09 mail sendmail[10703]: 342A19Wv010703: from=root,
> size=14672,
> > class=0, nrcpts=1,
> > msgid=<202305021001.342a19wv010...@mail.citytel.net>,
> > relay=root@localhost
>
> This is sent by Sendmail(TM), not Postfix. You need to run whatever sy
> On May 2, 2023, at 16:14, kwoody--- via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>>> Log for the nightly cron job run:
>>>
>>> 03:01:09 mail sendmail[10703]: 342A19Wv010703: from=root,
>> size=14672,
>>> class=0, nrcpts=1,
>>> msgid=<202305021001.342a19wv010...@mail.citytel.net>,
>>> relay=root@localhost
>>
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 07:03:55PM -0400, PGNet Dev via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Also look into other possibilities, the DST Root issue is a bit of a
> > longshot. If you can get an account on Outlook.com, send mail and
> > see if it bounces with usable diagnostics in the bounce.
>
> I changed t
Hello
iCloud mail has two MX RR:
icloud.com. 3600IN MX 10 mx01.mail.icloud.com.
icloud.com. 3600IN MX 10 mx02.mail.icloud.com.
But these two MX have the same IPs included.
mx01:
mx01.mail.icloud.com. 300 IN A 17.42.251.62
mx01
Forgive me if I’m wrong but the advantages I can see:
- load balancing / redundancy
- failover
- geoDNS
This would be for handling of incoming connections. I have no knowledge of
apples infrastructure whether they are using geo-loadbalancer across multiple
datacentres, whether their dcs are
Ken Peng via Postfix-users:
> Hello
>
> iCloud mail has two MX RR:
>
> icloud.com. 3600IN MX 10 mx01.mail.icloud.com.
> icloud.com. 3600IN MX 10 mx02.mail.icloud.com.
>
> But these two MX have the same IPs included.
>
> mx01:
> mx01.mail.icloud.co
Since mx1 and mx2 have the same IPs included,
it's a waste to postfix's chosen space for IP addresses. For example, the 5 MX
IPs could have 2 duplicates.
So I am not sure why apple has this wasted setup.
Thank you.
>
> Ken Peng via Postfix-users:
>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > iCloud mail has t
Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces parameter is
described in the documentation as making Postfix use only the interfaces listed
for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores the parameter by using network
interfaces that are not listed.
There is nothing mentioned
Postfix needs to be patched so that the value of the inet_interfaces parameter
is obeyed regardless of whether or not IPv6 (or other IP versions?) is enabled.
K
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 4:57 am
> From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users"
> To: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users"
> Subje
Disabling IPv6 probably isn't an acceptable workaround anyway. What happens if
both an IPv4 and IPv6 IP address is listed? Postfix may still use other network
interfaces not listed (IP addresses).
Changing the parameter name wouldn't be a bad idea either seeing parameter
values are actually IP
This looks a network and config issue rather than any defect in PF be
that with the code or the docs...
I would highly recommend you crawl before you try running so with that
in mind, scale back your config to just use v4 and get that working.
Also, if you really want help on this mailer, pos
I've been posting on this mailer for the past 2 days and I have posted my
configuration file as we as my mail log which demonstrates a problem with
Postix where it is using network interfaces it shouldn't be using, as per the
documentation. This is the first time I have seen you here, so, perhap
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:57:57AM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
> Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces
> parameter is described in the documentation as making Postfix use only
> the interfaces listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores
> the pa
I feel there are a lot of fanboys here who are in denial about my finding and
are sticking their head in the sand about it in the face of what my Postfix is
doing, so there is no more point in me talking about it.
I will use the work around of switching off off IPv6. And hopefully Wietse will
f
I am no fanboy of Postfix and have had more than my share of problems
wading through the documentation and often fining it quite thin - but on
this issue, I have no problem with Postfix's behavior. It is normal and
I think desirable for programs to choose sensible defaults when
possible. This m
OK - not gonna argue any of your ridiculous comments. You’re likely
just trolling the mailer for lulz or some such and therefore don’t
deserve my or anyone else’s time…
Good luck chief - you’re gonna need it…
- - -
On 2 May 2023, at 21:12, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
I've been posti
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:57:34PM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Documentation can always be improved but there is nothing wrong with the
> program itself in this respect.
We can close this thread. The OP's membership in the list has been
terminated for uncivil behaviour. I
On 03.05.23 06:12, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote:
I've been posting on this mailer for the past 2 days and I have posted my
configuration file as we as my mail log which demonstrates a problem with
Postix where it is using network interfaces it shouldn't be using, as per
the documentation.
On 27.04.23 17:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my
body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm getting right now.
I've it configured like this:
root@alita:/etc/postfix# postconf -n body_checks
body_checks = pcr
On 28/04/23 03:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my
body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm getting right now.
Oh yuck.
I've found that the best way to block backscatter is by using the
backs
May 3, 2023 at 1:43 PM, "Peter via Postfix-users"
wrote:
>
> On 28/04/23 03:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my
> > body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm getting right now.
On 3/05/23 17:51, Ken Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
But anybody can use our (even setup correctly) mailserver as backscatter source?
Not if you configure postfix properly.
Peter
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscr
66 matches
Mail list logo
