On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:47:19AM +0200, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
> @Ralph
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
> rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an a
>
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
>
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never receiveread any messages. Is an
automated message to noti
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
On 20.06.24 11:22, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never recei
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> mail off to spamassassin for processing and then receives it back
> for delivery, but I'm unclear what checks could be implemente
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
>>
>> If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
>
> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
Please cor
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users wrote:
> > One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>
> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
Yes, but easily adapted.
> But I don't know how such a regex should be
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>>> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>>
>> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
>
> Yes, but easily ad
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message rejected
due to: SPF fail - not authorized. Please see
http://spf.libraesva.com/Why?s=helo;id=mail01.my-company.com;ip=192.168.52.130;r=do
On 2024-06-20 at 09:00:35 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:00:35 +0200)
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message
rejected
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting.
"Proper" is for the recipients of your messages to be able to use the
reply function in their MUA, to ask for clarification/assistance in
regards to the
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 08:51:33 Alexander Leidinger via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> This implies that the organization / company is willing to spend
> money on having someone available to actually respond / provide
> support. For a lot of the use cases I would say even a mail to
> ticket system gate
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 09:08:39 Bastian Blank via Postfix-users pisze:
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
Sender callout is discouraged now, because it is considered aggressive
behavior by
2024. 06. 20. 14:33 keltezéssel, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users írta:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
One could try
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an automatic
response. IMHO.
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. Peopl
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users, <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
> doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
>
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for
So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for the sending hostname)
as I was seeing some of these I think.
Im confused by the language being used.
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
This helo-argument is by default the value of the Postfix myho
> On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
>> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
>> mail off to spamassassin for processing and the
Le 20/06/2024 à 21:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users a écrit :
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argumen
On 6/20/2024 2:28 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
m
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> > On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17?AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> >> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> >> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> >> m
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-20 21:28:
If it’s header_checks, I would probably use something like
/^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-100[/ to catch everything above five.
header checks in postfix is done before content filters, so you would
love to reject spam on base of remot
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 01:02:36PM -0400, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> > will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
> An option is to have noreply@ delivered to /dev/null. It's valid and a
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
>In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
>interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
>There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch evaluate
>whatever SPF identity check that
best is to use a milter to reject spam, such as rspamd or
amavisd-milter, no forged header checks then
i know rspamd is a milter, but spamassassin not working as milter?
thanks.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsu
Le 21/06/2024 à 00:13, John Levine a écrit :
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch
On 2024-06-20 at 15:59:25 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:59:25 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
If you use some Milter like rspamd then you need milter_header_checks.
You could do that, but if a milter is handling the filter it can just
tell postfix to re
Hello
for these options for submission in master.cf:
submission inet n - y - - smtpd
# -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
# -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
# -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes
# -o smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no
#
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 07:54:40AM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hello
>
> for these options for submission in master.cf:
>
> submission inet n - y - - smtpd
> # -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
> # -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
> -o smtpd_sa
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
Th
30 matches
Mail list logo
