Hey!
I have set up clamav, and I think it works
But when a mail is recieved, it is first scanned by rspamd and then
clamav. Thats all fine.
But when clamav is done, rspamd scans it again.
My setup is debian, postfix, rspamd, clamav, dovecot.
Most of the setup from https://workaround.org/isp
On 09-09-2024 13:46, chandan via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-09-09 10:53, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Hey!
I have set up clamav, and I think it works
But when a mail is recieved, it is first scanned by rspamd and then
clamav. Thats all fine.
But when clamav is done
Den 09.09.2024 kl. 15.14 skrev Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
On 09-09-2024 13:46, chandan via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-09-09 10:53, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Hey!
I have set up clamav, and I think it works
But when a mail is
hank you for your patience and your help!
Best regards
Danjel
On 09-09-2024 13:52, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
Hey!
I have set up clamav, and I think it works
But when a mail is recieved, it is first scanned by rspamd and then
clamav. Thats a
Hey!
Can someone explain this to me (being a newbie).
I've had zero issues installing postfix, rspamd, dovecot, clamav on debian.
At least not issues that sound like chroot is the culprit.
Just because I would like to be prepared for upcoming issues AND because I'm
curious.
Best regards
Danjel
On 30 September 2024 06:00:32 CEST, Peter via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On 30/09/24 10:38, Steve Matzura via Postfix-users wrote:
>> 2024-09-29T21:31:27.402601+00:00 tgv24 postfix/error[1775]: B9E5510584F:
>> to=, orig_to=, relay=none,
>> delay=48744, delays=48594/150/0/0.01, dsn=4.4.1, status=de
I had the same idea until very recently, I had a TOR filter in my
firewall enabled (Don't remember why, the docs said "don't unless sure")
But after changing it it worked again.
Could this be your case?
//Danjel
On 01-11-2024 22:01, Zachary Appella via Postfix-users wrote:
Is it just me
On 01-11-2024 01:00, Adriel via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
I have policyd-spf and opendkim (as a milter) installed for postfix.
How can I customize the policy that, if an incoming message has SPF
failed AND has invalid DKIM then this message will be rejected? AFAIK
google has this kind of re
On 06-11-2024 21:54, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 7/11/24 09:48, Hua Young via Postfix-users wrote:
Nope. smtps (port 465) and submissions (port 587) are two separated
services defined in master.cf. Their use will not affect each other.
"smtps" is the old name for "submissions" and both r
On 23 October 2024 22:29:58 CEST, John Stoffel via Postfix-users
wrote:
>> "Wietse" == Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
>> writes:
>
>> John Stoffel:
>>> > "Wietse" == Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
>>> > writes:
>>>
>>> > Postfix lists are run by Mailman3, configured to r
Hello everyone!
My server is still rather new, so I have a not so tight policy set up.
And I ask for reports at the dmarc record.
postconf -n
*
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
compatibility_level = 3.6
inet_interfaces = al
Hi Gerald.
I'm sorry that I may have been a bit unclear of my issue.
I'm not confused about receiving the report, but the content of it.
And what to change in my config so that I do not see fail records
regarding mail coming from my own server.
I think I have got what I need from Wietse and a
On 24-09-2024 20:28, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
On 23-09-2024 00:11, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm sorry that I may have been a bit unclear of my issue.
I'm not confused about receiving the report, but the content of it
On 23-09-2024 00:11, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm sorry that I may have been a bit unclear of my issue.
I'm not confused about receiving the report, but the content of it.
And what to change in my config so that I do not see fail records regarding
mail coming from my own server.
On 06-11-2024 16:52, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
Hey!
I have a working setup, all good.
But I have a scanner that I cannot get to work.
I get _nothing_ in the logs.
The scanner reports "error", so not much help here.
But I foun
Hey!
I have a working setup, all good.
But I have a scanner that I cannot get to work.
I get _nothing_ in the logs.
The scanner reports "error", so not much help here.
But I found a screen indicating port 465.
I have only enabled 587 (and 25).
Can anyone tell me how I open up 465 the easiest
On 09-11-2024 19:08, Randy Bush via Postfix-users wrote:
I don't know aboud rspamd, but SpamAssassin may produce headers like:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
which would positively match the OP's regexp:
/^X-Spam.*YES/
i do not believe rspamd produces suc
On 14-11-2024 22:02, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Can someone set up a CNAME or alias forhttps://www.postfix.org so that
https://postfix.org works?
That may be possible by adding a DNS postfix.org A record (with the
same IP address aswww.postfix.org), plus webserver configuration
(also
On 16 November 2024 08:35:32 CET, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 05:17:39PM +1100, Phil via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> > > Is default_extra_recipient_limit not limiting the number of recipients
>> > > in a
>> > > given message ?
>> >
>> > No. And, what did y
On 09-12-2024 10:37, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
I'd love to hear other opinions and comments about this matter.
First I need to say that I'm no programmer, nor an expert.
I'm running postfix on Debian 12, and am happy with the setup.
I have not unchrooted to the best of my knowled
the system is a Debian 12 with latest updates. Did Microsoft mess it or
do we mess it?
Anyone else experiencing such issues with MS atm?
I have nothing like that in my logs, but I'm pretty low volume
//Danjel
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- po
Yes, we all learn!
But a lot of us here learn from all of the volunteers that spend their
time developing this excellent software and provide free support to all
of the "rookies". Me included.
I will grab the opportunity to thank all of you nice clever people for
helping the rest of us, even
Hey.
I have read something about DANE.
I have seen very different recommendations.
I have decided to give it a shot.
But I figured that "someone" here (maybe Viktor??) may be able to tell
me the best / official place to look for information and help for the
best implementation.
Currently I
On 11-02-2025 10:31, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
Use a validating resolver on the local machine as a cache that forwards
to that upstream. You SHOULD NOT trust the AD bit from a resolver
running on another machine, the DNS protocol (DoH aside, when you
fully trust the upstream) is n
On 11-02-2025 08:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:14:36PM +0100, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
I have decided to give it a shot.
When you say "give it a shot", do you mean enabling DANE*outbound* in
your Postfix SMTP client, i.e.
On 11-02-2025 08:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:14:36PM +0100, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
I have decided to give it a shot.
When you say "give it a shot", do you mean enabling DANE*outbound* in
your Postfix SMTP client, i.e.
On 20-01-2025 23:28, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
It's not difficult to remove it, a patch has already been accepted:
https://github.com/crpb/rspamd/commit/1bfa26296e65514c00e18f856ef3297e7fefdd1c
And it might not have gone for good.
I have commented it out
THX
--
Med venlig hilsen
On 18 January 2025 07:42:54 CET, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
>[ Repost from "mailop" list ]
>
>Just FYI for those with the nixspam RBL configured in their systems (For
>example it's enabled in rspamd by default)
Is it safe to assume that it will go away by itself during a future
Hey.
First please note that I'm no expert!
But I use spamhaus in rspamd.
It has the advantage that it can be used as scoring, some of the lists are not
suitable for blindly blocking.
As I understand it, you can potentially save a few cpu cycles if you use
postfix directly and therefore block
On 05-03-2025 21:23, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
You can use the Spamhaus DNSBLs for free if your query volume is low and your
DNS resolver isn't public. DROP is also available free as a JSON file which
gets changes every few days. As of this morning it had just 1359 entries, so
your sp
On 06-03-2025 09:28, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users wrote:
Hmm, zen.spamhaus.org doesn't resolve anymore. I wonder what would be the
correct/contemporary version of:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
Mine also stopped working some time ago, resolved by setting up my ow
On 06-03-2025 09:29, Petko Manolov via Postfix-users wrote:
On 25-03-06 07:45:35, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
On 05-03-2025 21:23, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
You can use the Spamhaus DNSBLs for free if your query volume is low and
your DNS resolver isn't public. DR
Sorry for going a bit OT
On 11-02-2025 11:52, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm no expert to say the least, so this may be a stupid question:
If setting up a completely seperate bind is preferred, could I make an
"empty" setup and use my primary as forwarder?
Yes, that's the idea. W
THX!
On 30-06-2025 13:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:43:17AM +0200, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
Do I get this right, if I say that it only applies to me, if I'm using the
"advised against" method 2 x x?
Or rather planning
HEY!
I read this and it made no sense to me.
I'm still a novice...
Now I had better time and tried again.
Do I get this right, if I say that it only applies to me, if I'm using
the "advised against" method 2 x x?
Or rather planning to use, I'm not up and running with inbound dane yet
Bes
On 15 July 2025 21:19:17 CEST, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:02:33AM -0700, Curtis Vaughan via Postfix-users
>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I heard about that as well, but I thought I'm not Cloudflare so surely
>> that's not the issue. Hm
>
>The simplest, and et
Sorry for replying after this message, I read in chronological order
Will shut up now.
BR
Danjel
On 16 July 2025 16:45:07 CEST, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
>> Sure. Very much so. As a matter i found even that shitty
>> Wikipedia quoting a g
37 matches
Mail list logo
