Dear list,
A shocking incident in software industry has been disclosed recently.
I'm sharing it here so that more people can support the cause.
https://www.change.org/p/andi-puehringer-netzrezepte-de-netzrezepte-technologies-pvt-ltd-clear-pending-salaries-and-compensate-for-our-job-loss
ww.faithwalk.ca[24.72.66.135], sasl_method=PLAIN,
sasl_username=bob
Jul 18 10:55:22 server postfix/cleanup[10304]: 0F83A1280024:
message-id=<578d09f9.4000...@faithwalk.ca>
Jul 18 10:55:22 server postfix/qmgr[24473]: 0F83A1280024:
from=, size=676, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jul 18 10:55:22 server pos
cannot receive mail. The system returns a "user not found"
or "user unknown" message in the logs. I checked my home directory and
there is a Maildir in that directory. I do not have virtual mailboxes
set up. Any help would be appreciated.
Bob
On 2016-07-25 10:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Bob:
I am using postfix on an Ubuntu 16.04 system. I have also installed
dovecot as my mail server. I am able to send mail, I am also able to
check my mx setup from outside my domain (mxtoolbox) and it tells me
there is only one issue with a banner
wrote:
Bob:
Receive mail to main user /var/log/mail.log
Jul 25 10:01:47 server postfix/qmgr[1870]: A8DC012800A9:
from=,
size=45253, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jul 25 10:01:47 server postfix/pipe[5182]: A8DC012800A9:
to=, relay=mailman, delay=0.69,
delays=0.4/0.01/0
On 2016-07-25 11:54 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:30:55AM -0600, Bob wrote:
evidence in the form of "postconf -n" command out and logfile records,
perhaps anonymized, and never with verbose logging turned on.
So, I now know what you need to see and wi
Please excuse my questions, I am just learning this. More response below
On 2016-07-25 04:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Jul 25, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Bob wrote:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
Here is the file, which explains why mail is going to mailman as well, but I am
On 2016-07-25 05:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:04:15PM -0600, Bob wrote:
lists.faithwalk.ca mailman:
faithwalk.camailman:
There's your mistake, you can't deliver non-list mail via mailman, it only
handles mailing lists. Only the "l
BTW, I do have aliases for emails to the mailman lists in my alias
database, so I believe that is also good.
On 2016-07-25 05:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:04:15PM -0600, Bob wrote:
lists.faithwalk.ca mailman:
faithwalk.camailman:
There's
On 2016-07-26 06:42 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
BTW Bob, I answered your question on July 18 when you asked it the
first time.
http://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=146888588215649&w=2
I am sorry I missed your reply. Thank you for trying to help me.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 07:28:13AM -0
lient list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org,
reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
permit
smtpd_error_sleep_time = 1s
smtpd_soft_error_limit = 10
smtpd_hard_error_limit = 20
- Regards,
Bob.
sometime to be paid for blacklists).
- TIA
Bob.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> bob 001 wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>> Couple questions. Appreciate your responses.
>>
>> 1. Is there any way to set anti spam settings just for incoming emails
&g
Hi people !
I have a postfix server and I want to redirect my mails to another server (Spam
filter) after the aliase resolution. Because this spam filter can only filter
100 adresses.
When the other server has completed its work, it sends this mail to my Postfix
server (on another SMTP process
ydomain
I run postfix 2.3.3 on CentOS 5.4.
Any ideas?
Bob
ahoo Mail
addressed to b...@foo.example.org but would work with
b...@foo.example.com.
Bob
Summary: Thanks for all of the responses. I originally thought this
was a Postfix issue, but now I see that I was doing something invalid
in DNS. I'm surprised that my otherwise excellent nameserver provider
allowed me to do this.
Isaac Witmer wrote:
> Could you point me to the specific list you're referring to?
A good catchall is debian-u...@lists.debian.org where general
discussion takes place.
Bob
: warning: group or other writable:
/etc/postfix/./access-times.db
Should I change the permissions on these files to rw r r? What effect, if any
is there in making the change?
Bob
On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:40 PM, lunix wrote:
> run the command postfix set-permissions to fix it.
Now that's what I call easy! Thanks folks.
-Bob
t map with all valid email
addresses listed.
But I am sure this has been a process that has been put into place
many times before by many different people. Is there any wisdom that
you might want to share? Any hints on good ways to do this?
Thanks,
Bob
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/postfix_archive.shtml
> but you would use always_bcc_maps
Thanks for the pointer to that documentation. And all of the followup
discussion from the others. I will give that a try and see how it goes.
Thanks!
Bob
A friend's Mac running Postfix logged this rejected attack:
Feb 11 21:45:28 mailer postfix/smtpd[3708]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[216.104.47.74]: 504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need
fully-qualified hostname; from= to=&0 2>&0> proto=SMTP helo=
Of course this particular message was
Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The remote mta security exploit I couldn't locate references to was
> > the "to= > vulnerable to "+:|" in the To address? Or perhaps none are and this
> > is simply a failed probe attempt?
>
> Likely re
ny explicit documentation of the
change, and so here I am asking for a clarification of intent.
Thanks!
Bob
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Proulx:
> > Today I upgraded a machine from the older 2.7.x series to the latest
> > 2.8.1 and found a difference. This is from Debian Sid.
>
> Please, review the RELEASE_NOTES file and look for the
> section titled "Major changes - dns l
I have set up SpamAssissin with an account to collect rejected
emails. Is there a way to periodically empty the mail queue for that
account with a cron job or some other such method that does not
require human intervention
to handle any domains which match the wildcard MX record?
e.g.:
b...@host1.example.com
b...@host2.example.com
b...@gibberish.example.com
... should all map to b...@mail.example.com. I'm only concerned about
the user "bob" if that matters. I won't know in advance all the hosts
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> APPEND a regular expression map to your virtual_alias_maps
> definition.
Many thanks. I'm all set now.
Bob
to be educated on how to do it.
Thanks,
Bob
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >The mail queue has messages addressed to unreachable addresses. I
> >know that if I do nothing that eventually they will expire normally
> >...
>
> Altering the status in-queue will be difficult, so you will have to
> d
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Proulx:
> > I have been trying to deduce if it is possible to force a message
> > waiting in the mail queue with temporary errors (domain name
> > resolution failures) to bounce right now instead of waiting for the
> > timeout.
>
>
trying various things I am unable to deduce the
proper way to tell postfix that it has no local recipients.
Thanks!
Bob
Kurt Buff wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > How can I configure a host to send *all* email to the relayhost?
>
> mydestination =
> transport_maps = hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/transport
Aha! Unsetting mydestination seems to be the magic sauce in this
problem. Then no
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Bob Proulx :
> > How can I configure a host to send *all* email to the relayhost?
>
> mydestination =
> relayhost = [the.relay.host]
Aha! Unsetting mydestination is the magic configuration. Not having
mydestination available causes none of the des
g that I simply missed finding such a thing.
Thanks,
Bob
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Proulx:
> > From: Some User
> >
> > This case is mailed but the From: line is changed to be the account
> > user owner of the forwarding process. The result shows up in the
>
> What clobbers the From: header? Postfix does not, becau
fix is ignoring the
warning?
warning: restriction `warn_if_reject' after `permit' is ignored
Does this mean, Postfix rejected an email according to some rule in the
main.cf. And, Postfix is ignoring the warning?
Thanks for the help.
-Bob
Bob Cohen
Writer, Internet Consultant, T
On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if you want any meaningful answer you have to poast at least
> a full snippet of all lines to a specific message and output
> of "postconf -n"
Thank you.
-Bob
log snippet 1
Jan 26 13:03:00 fortapache postfix/smtpd[2
On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Cohen:
>> Follows are several maillog entries. I'm not clear on how to read them.
>>
>> warning: restriction `reject_rbl_client' after `permit' is ignored
>
> This means that you have configure
On Jan 26, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> No. It means you should read documentation instead
> seeking well-known answers on the mailing list.
Thank you. Sorry if I violated list etiquette. It's hard for a ham and egger
like me to know what is or isn't common k
kay.
Again, that is only if you are intending to use the sasldb2 file. It
is a nice simple fallback. But most schemes use other access control
methods.
Bob
that isn't to be used. Since this email from the upstream mailing
list server is legitimate.
And so here I am querying the wisdom of the net to see why using
smtpd_client_connection_count_limit would be bad and what alternative
strategies exist.
Thanks,
Bob
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Periodically a large wave of email from the mailing lists will be
> > unleashed. Such as when upstream connectivity is down for a while
> > causing a backlog and then it is restored causing a transfer of the
Probably due to hi
low as 512 to keep
> a low-speed backup connection usable. For this a simple "postfix
> reload" is not sufficient. For details see:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#tcp_windowsize
This looks interesting. I will investigate and try it.
Thanks!
Bob
e it works without having to spend days pulling out
what's left of my hair to make it all work.
Bob
Bob Cohen
Principal, MojoTools Web Design
W: www.mojotools.com
O: 508.384.0405
rectory
Is your postfix running inside of a container with a different /tmp
than the one outside the container?
All appearances are that it is writing to /tmp/somefile and if it is
not there later then either it is getting removed or it is a different
/tmp.
Bob
.
Since this procmail mail filtering side of things is off topic here
for Postfix I will just toss this in and then back away hoping not to
annoy the core group here too much with discussion not postfix
related.
Bob
n packaged default version of the file and
there have been no local changes. Confirmed by etckeeper.
So what am I missing that I will be astonished I did not see myself?
Thanks! :-)
Bob
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I am helping a friend with his system. As such things are not as I
> > would set them up. But just the same I can't figure out this
> > problem. So I come here seeking a second set of eyes on it. What is
> > the p
distro package init scripts copy resolv.conf into the
chroot. Prevent that and apply your own setting.
Bob
such an event on
two of the systems but okay on the others?
Bob
I am abbreviating everything because it was too large for the mailing
list on the first sending of this message. :-)
Here is one of the config files for the two where postfix was found
not running. I'll put the long details
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Bob Proulx:
> > Any ideas on why postfix would not be running after such an event on
> > two of the systems but okay on the others?
>
> LOGS. Postfix logs a sh*load, including processes that fail to
> start. If the systems were unable to record this
ll try to restart postfix.
Good ideas though. Thank you for brainstorming along with me.
Bob
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix was only the messenger of bad news. It does not
> spontaneously self-destruct.
I have always found Postfix to be extremely reliable and robust.
Which was why this happening on two different systems was such an oddity.
Bob
k I know I need a way to detect that
the network attached block storage has been offline too long and that
the system when recovered from that needs to be rebooted.
Bob
fer without DKIM between those two coordinating sites.
SMTP is not designed to transfer large files such as this. It's not.
Much better to use a protocol designed for transfering large files.
Perhaps use email for notifications of and about the transfer only.
Bob
to 150 MB and try a test. But I would not expect to
see any significant problem.
Just do it!
Bob
ents.
It would be a way to delegate configuration responsibility for them.
It could then relay the mail on to the main mail relay as you prefer.
That could even be a long haul across the Internet WAN using TLS with
certificates and everything.
Bob
; filenamehere
The POSIX standard mailx program will format the mail headers
correctly and then pass the message on to /usr/sbin/sendmail for
transport and delivery.
Bob
Daniel Azuelos wrote:
> I just found an email incorrectly filtered by my .procmailrc,
> because the To: wasn't postfix-users@postfix.org:
...
> To: postfix-us...@cloud9.net
Instead of filtering on the To the better idea is to use the standard
mail headers that the mailing list adds to the messag
rs@postfix.org:
And therefore I answered with a procmail specific hint. :-)
Bob
ry up so that it will use the new
transport rather than the previous?
postsuper -r ALL # no effect
I tried the above but obviously that did not cause Postfix to
reprocess the message and then use the new transport. Is there a way
to have Postfix reprocess to use the new transport rules?
Thanks!
Bob
. Having moved them to the right place as instructed I now see
them being transported to Google at the slow turtle rate.
And most important Google is now accepting the messages. The three
messages that Google has not been accepting since Monday has now been
accepted using the newly defined slow transport.
Thanks! :-)
Bob
Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 15.06.2022 o godz. 22:00:45 Bob Proulx pisze:
> > It is interesting that mail to domains hosted at google that are not
> > @gmail.com but other named domains delivered okay. Google accepted
> > the exact same message to them fine.
>
> It ca
27;t
really a problem now since it is really only @gmail.com addresses
specifically that run into this problem. Because of the prevalence of
exactly that one address to be a problem. And that is handled by the
scheme as described. So no burdensome problem to solve at this
moment.
Thanks for the help! :-)
Bob
Google's Gmail this is required to be
fully active and tuned up or your reputation for spam will suffer due
to the passing through of it. I am using combined arms tactics with a
combination of CRM114 and SpamAssassin and find the result good.
Bob
ad, specify the correct
> envelope sender address:
>
> /usr/bin/sendmail -f yom...@example.com recipient
WDYT about using a canonical table to map www-d...@example.com to
desi...@example.com? Then no Reply-To would be needed since the From:
address would be correct.
For the OP:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html#canonical
Bob
t which is self-consistent upon fresh
installation. Something is needed so something locally consistent was
chosen. Suitable only for local mail delivery. It is expected for
this to be re-configured appropriately for any network connected
hosts.
Bob
ests at all.
Help users out by not allowing them to make poor choices.
> Oh, actually majordomo.pl shouldn't work in perl5 since 5.10.
> It uses $* which was removed then (2007). That's wierd. It
> was still working for me in 2015.
Only a few changes are needed for perl 5.10. Needed since 2008 or so!
https://www.mail-archive.com/misc@openbsd.org/msg69481.html
Bob
ual SMTP rejecting a 554? Or was it a 471? I feel it must
have been a 471 because it is retrying instead of immediately
bouncing. Yet here it is saying it was a 554. In which case why
isn't it bouncing immediately?
I will include some hopefully useful information below.
Thanks!
Bob
ro
Noel Jones wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > But this confuses me. It appears to me that the message was rejected
> > at SMTP time with a 554 code. Therefore shouldn't that generate a
> > bounce message immediately? Why is dsn=4.7.1 being logged there?
>
> The remo
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > "By default, the Postfix SMTP client moves on the next mail
> > exchanger. Specify "smtp_skip_5xx_greeting = no" if Postfix should
> > bounce the mail immediately. Caution: the latter behavior appears to
But
perhaps the minimum amount that I would tolerate. Perhaps a starting
place at best.
> It seems to me that it is possible to achieve with smtpd restrictions, but I
> cannot figure out how to assemble senders and recipients parameters in
> main.cf.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks for your time.
Hope this helps!
Bob
s it bouncing? And isn't mail going to @mx.example.com exactly
what you have asked for? Why does that mail bounce?
Bob
e' or 'autossh' to set
up a tunnel. Three good possibilities in that one sentence. In
different places I have made good use of all three of those. Pros and
cons to each.
The best solution for you is the one you understand the best. That is
the one you can manage the easiest.
Sorry if one question begets quite a few more. But that is the nature
of these things! :-)
Bob
Ian Evans wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The best solution for you is the one you understand the best. That is
> > the one you can manage the easiest.
> >
> > Sorry if one question begets quite a few more. But that is the nature
> > of these things! :-)
>
>
ure of often broken
systems which would cause loss of mail. Better to use SPF as part of
a scoring system. Then by itself it is unlikely to be a problem at
the inevitiable cases where things are broken.
HTH!
Bob
e for
me to be born before 1980 AND also be part of an extremist plain text
viewpoint at the same time. :-)
Bob
xt email fairly well
I still much prefer plain text email. Plain text is best.
I keep threatening some of the worse offenders that I am going to
draw my response in crayon, scan in the image, and send back my
responses that way, as my preferred visual rendering!
Bob
information I can write the script to trigger the
actions I want when the VPN device changes state and it will all work
event driven immediately and not need to be polled by cron. This is
what I would suggest. But with the Fedora paths not the ones I
mention above from Debian which I was writing simply as an example.
Bob
e configuration.
I have been vague about how I am port forwarding. I am using AutoSSH
from https://www.harding.motd.ca/autossh/ which is clever. But
probably not for everyone. OpenVPN is the most industrial strength.
'sshuttle' has interesting use cases too. I use the tool that fit
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, March 23, 2020 7:47:25 PM EDT Bob Proulx wrote:
But don't forget I also said:
> > I know you said you are running Fedora but I imagine that Fedora
> > has something like this but in a different place. Doesn't Fedora
> > have a
t
is down. In which case, for example, this following would work only
when the VPN is up.
$ nc 172.16.10.101 25
220 mail.example.com ESMTP Postfix
If you can't connect and get a banner then Postfix can't connect and
get a banner.
Bob
g spammed.
It's definitely a target for spam. Which must be repelled. As
spammers routinely target lower priority MX relays expecting to find
them less well maintained than the highest priority one.
Bob
d of port 25 then repeat those lines
with port 587.
BTW... +1 for Bastian's very simple and elegant suggestion. :-)
Bob
Peter wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >iptables -A OUTPUT -o 93.184.216.34 -m tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT
> >iptables -A OUTPUT -m tcp --dport 25 -j REJECT
> >
> > But replace 93.184.216.34 with the IP address of your VPN relay host.
> > I simply used an actu
to
see if it is valid. If so then it would accept the message. If not,
and here it is not a valid addres, then it is rejected at SMTP time.
No bounce message is created.
Hope that helps clarify things.
Bob
kely given what we know now,
that you have a system that is an open relay and has been found by
spammers who are exploiting it. Spammers often use forged from
addresses. Which if so would explain why you are getting rejects from
those email providers.
Bob
d
double scoring. But since this isn't the SpamAssassin users list I
will simply suggest gently that something is wrong with the milter
configuration for it interfacing to Postfix.
Bob
and very few if any significant reasons to want to send or receive over
> IPv6. If one has a working IPv4-only mail system, adding IPv6 is pure work
> for no discernible benefit.
How are working and available IPv6 DNSBLs progressing? That's a
critical component which I would love to hear is no longer a missing
component.
Bob
tconf: warning: /etc/postfix/main.cf: unused parameter:
policy-spf_time_limit=3600s
What more can I look for? I really want to help this user, and it is baffling
me why I can't see Postfix trying to deliver the email.
Bob
that the more possibilities for unexpected bad
combinations resulting in an "impossible" result.
Thanks for sharing that story case. It was interesting reading! It
motivates me to try extra hard to stay on the main path now. :-)
Bob
postconf relayhost
relayhost = smtp.proulx.com:587
And so it is possible to use that Debian specific installation
option. Any more details here should be on a Debian specific mailing
list.
However personally I always simply choose Internet Site and then
configure everything I want on top of that template. It's a good
default to start from but I always want more specific customizations
on top of it.
Bob
-to-use-gmail-as-a-mail-relay/
And this one is in the www.postfix.org/docs.html page.
http://souptonuts.sourceforge.net/postfix_tutorial.html
Bob
ix is started the networking is not
yet available.
The problem as described seems not to involve Postfix so much as the
init system that is starting daemons needing the network without
waiting for the network to finish initializing.
Bob
nter. As I understand it this is
not a free service however and you would need to pay Google for it.
Bob
ue.
But of course I assume that your site has been allowing forwarding for
a long time. It's now part of the status quo there. Changing that
would be very disruptive. I understand that completely. It's a
problem. A problem without any good solutions. I can only suggest
that you be aware that it is "thin ice" and keep looking for a
solution. Along with the rest of us.
Bob
continue
since it would have been due to this other configuration anyway.
The answer is almost certainly in the mail logs. What do they say?
Look in /var/log/maillog and /var/log/messages files. Potentially use
journalctl to dump out the systemd logs. Look with 'mailq' to see
what is still in the queue.
Bob
dentify the mail I would need to
look at the message headers (Show original message...) in the mailer.
That would show me the Received: and Message-id: headers and I would
use that to identify the system.
Hope this helps!
Bob
system that would be this one. Which on my system is
updated when the service script starts postfix.
/var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
Bob
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
