When sending a mail with a folded message-id header according to [
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2%29 |
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2 ] and
[ https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_threaded_bounces |
https://www.postfix.org/post
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> When sending a mail with a folded message-id header according to [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2%29 |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2 ] and
> [ https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_threa
For example
Message-ID:
would not be written into the In-Reply-To.
So a simple crlf with space.
Thomas
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
To: "Postfix users"
Sent: Thursday, 5 September, 2024 14:12:32
Subject: [pfx] Re: Postfix ignores message id when thre
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Thomas Mörbauer via Postfix-users
wrote:
> When sending a mail with a folded message-id header ... then the
> message-id is ignored with the log message: "ignoring malformed
> Message-ID".
There really SHOULD NOT be any folding whitespace in the middle
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Thomas Mörbauer via Postfix-users
wrote:
> For example
> Message-ID:
>
> would not be written into the In-Reply-To.
> So a simple crlf with space.
That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
folding whitespace *before* (not in t
>That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
>folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
occur after the header label according to the non obsolete RFCs.
>There are no clear cut rul
Howdy, all!
I am using Postfix for a small business/family e-mail domain. It's
pretty low volume, and I am really doing it as much to keep current on
Postfix as anything. We're getting positively hammered by spam. I used
to use Spamassassin when I was a Sendmail guy, but I have not had time
t
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> >That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
> >folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
> Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
> occur after the header label according to the non
On 2024-09-05 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
There is no hard requirement to fold at 78 characters, the limit is 998
bytes. And Message-Id SHOULD not be folded, even if over 78 bytes
long.
I think it is fine for Postfix to treat folded Message-IDs as
malformed.
Interestin
chandan via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-09-05 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > There is no hard requirement to fold at 78 characters, the limit is 998
> > bytes. And Message-Id SHOULD not be folded, even if over 78 bytes
> > long.
> >
> > I think it is fine for Postfix to tr
2024-09-05T14:07:05Z Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users
:
> Am I smoking crack? Or is this pretty reasonable? Or should I just knuckle
> down and set up Spamassassin or some other anti-spam tool (I'm totally open
> to suggestions, I just have experience with SA from a past life)
No, you are not.
On 9/5/24 10:20 AM, Serhii via Postfix-users wrote:
2024-09-05T14:07:05Z Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users
:
Am I smoking crack? Or is this pretty reasonable? Or should I just knuckle down
and set up Spamassassin or some other anti-spam tool (I'm totally open to
suggestions, I just have exper
Hi
> My sender_access file looks like this:
> /@*.onmicrosoft\.com/ REJECT
> /\.pro$/ REJECT We reject all .pro domains. Contact thomas dot cameron at
> camerontech dot com from a trusted email service if you need assistance.
You could do that without regular expressions. Depending on y
On 9/5/2024 9:05 AM, Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/sender_access
permit_mynetworks
permit_auth_destination
Note permit_auth_destination allows any mail addressed to you. This
effectively bypasses a
On 9/5/2024 12:45 PM, Noel Jones via Postfix-users wrote:
On 9/5/2024 9:05 AM, Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/sender_access
permit_mynetworks
permit_auth_destination
Note permit_auth_destination all
On 9/5/24 12:19 PM, Bastian Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
My sender_access file looks like this:
/@*.onmicrosoft\.com/ REJECT
/\.pro$/ REJECT We reject all .pro domains. Contact thomas dot cameron at
camerontech dot com from a trusted email service if you need assistance.
You co
On 2024-09-05 at 11:20:52 UTC-0400 (Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:20:52 +
(UTC))
Serhii via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
2024-09-05T14:07:05Z Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users
:
Am I smoking crack? Or is this pretty reasonable? Or should I just
knuckle down and set up Spamassassin or some
2024-09-05T20:37:33Z Bill Cole via Postfix-users :
> [Puts on ASF SpamAssassin Contributor hat]
>
> There is a complex mechanism for this in SpamAssassin which (using the
> default rules & scores) is NOT an outright ban on any TLD in any particular
> role in a message but which has a significan
Bill Cole via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-09-05 22:35:
[Puts on ASF SpamAssassin Contributor hat]
not yet for sale :)
There is a complex mechanism for this in SpamAssassin which (using the
default rules & scores) is NOT an outright ban on any TLD in any
particular role in a message but whic
On 9/5/24 16:35, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
We act on bug reports that a listed TLD merits
removal by testing to confirm substantial non-spam hitting our
contributor mailstreams. I don't believe we list any country code TLDs
on principle.
There are a few ccTLDs that I block completel
On 9/5/24 12:53 PM, Noel Jones via Postfix-users wrote:
On 9/5/2024 12:45 PM, Noel Jones via Postfix-users wrote:
On 9/5/2024 9:05 AM, Thomas Cameron via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/sender_access
permit_mynetworks
p
how about setup a whitelist domains list?
for instance, only allow .com, .net, .org, .de, .ca and some coutries
TLD to be passed through.
Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users:
There are a few ccTLDs that I block completely (looks like four), all of
them problematic ccTLDs from which I have only
On 9/5/24 5:56 PM, LinuxMail.cc via Postfix-users wrote:
how about setup a whitelist domains list?
for instance, only allow .com, .net, .org, .de, .ca and some coutries
TLD to be passed through.
That's not a bad idea. Unfortunately we DO get a decent amount of
international email, so it's no
23 matches
Mail list logo
