Bitfox via Postfix-users:
> Hello
>
> I saw that when messages sent to duck.com for forwarding, duck.com will
> remove the original DKIM info from headers, to protect the sender
> privacy.
>
> I am just curious how to remove that DKIM in postfix?
With the header_checks IGNORE or STRIP action.
Did you verify the non-daemon programs, specifically that all
featrues work as promised in sendmail, postdrop, postqueue, postsuper,
postmap, postalias, and postcat? Be sure to also test as a non-root
and non-postfix user.
Did you test the privilege-changing features of local(8), pipe(8)
and spawn
On 2024-12-17 07:32, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> Isn't the only reason maldrop is setgid is to be able to access
> /var/mail/$USER ?
> Which is a sort of legacy these days too, and is solved entirely by
> switching to ~/Maildir/ or other means to store email?
Nope, it's about ac
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 08:43:48AM +0100, Ansgar Wiechers via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On 2024-12-17 Tobi via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I'm looking for a way to achieve the following: if postfix smtp client
> > cannot establish a TLS connection to MX host then we want to change
> > nexthop **and** ad
On 17/12/2024 06:06, Simon Wilson via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> Hi Postfix list,
>
> I have a stable low-volume Postfix setup on a 10-year-history IP address. In
> mid-2025 we need to relocate interstate.
> The mail MX is going to be offline for a few days for the relocation and have
> possible
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 09:55:32AM +0800, Bitfox via Postfix-users wrote:
> I saw that when messages sent to duck.com for forwarding, duck.com will
> remove the original DKIM info from headers, to protect the sender privacy.
>
> I am just curious how to remove that DKIM in postfix?
Top-level Hea
On 2024-12-17 06:41, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
> and repeated mentions about systemd and "real security", I decided to
Well, to be honest, mantra must be repeated - "it's not about security",
like nothing is being guaranteed (for various reasons) and "real
security" must be applied
17.12.2024 13:25, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-12-17 06:41, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
and repeated mentions about systemd and "real security", I decided to
Well, to be honest, mantra must be repeated - "it's not about security",
like nothing is being guaranteed (
On 2024-12-17 Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-12-17 07:32, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>>> But /dev/log in systemd is datagram socket...
>>
>> Hm. Is this yet another myth we're facing here?
>
> Well, there were lots of anti-systemd in the old days, most of them
> were
On 2024-12-17 11:59, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>>
>> How about direct delivery to /var/mail/$user?
>
> I'm not sure I understand. What are you talking about here? Postfix's
> local(8) can do direct delivery just fine.
Without cap_dac_override it won't.
Consider (and remember to c
On 2024-12-17 12:52, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-12-17 11:59, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>>>
>>> How about direct delivery to /var/mail/$user?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand. What are you talking about here? Postfix's
>> local(8) can do direct delivery just fine.
Eventually I will remove sasl from port 25. But since port 25 can use sasl
authentication, the reliability of the service should be ensured. Once dovecot
sasl terminates unexpectedly, it will cause a complete strike of smtpd on port
25. Any connection will not be responded. I think the high coup
On Wednesday, December 18, 2024 06:05 AEST, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Kenneth Porter via Postfix-users:
> The biggest headache I had when I used a backup MX was avoidingÂ
> backscatter. So I tweaked my milter on the primary to always accept mailÂ
> from the backup and never reject/b
Kenneth Porter via Postfix-users:
> The biggest headache I had when I used a backup MX was avoiding
> backscatter. So I tweaked my milter on the primary to always accept mail
> from the backup and never reject/bounce it. If necessary, silently drop
> spam.
>
> Alas, secondaries tend to be targe
Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
> 09.12.2024 20:15, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Noticed a small error in postfix-script. The change is
> > in sed expression - 's/,/ /' vs 'y/,/ /'. This isn't
> > really important (it only suppresses extra check of
> > a few dirs which are norm
On 17.12.2024 18:14, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Did you verify the non-daemon programs, specifically that all
featrues work as promised in sendmail, postdrop, postqueue, postsuper,
postmap, postalias, and postcat? Be sure to also test as a non-root
and non-postfix user.
Did you test
The biggest headache I had when I used a backup MX was avoiding
backscatter. So I tweaked my milter on the primary to always accept mail
from the backup and never reject/bounce it. If necessary, silently drop
spam.
Alas, secondaries tend to be targets for spammers, on the assumption
they get
Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users:
> On 17.12.2024 18:14, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Did you verify the non-daemon programs, specifically that all
> > featrues work as promised in sendmail, postdrop, postqueue, postsuper,
> > postmap, postalias, and postcat? Be sure to also test as
18 matches
Mail list logo
