:-)
I have an openldap server for accounts and other servers use pam_ldap.
We'd like to to store e-mail aliases as an LDAP `mail' attribute.
A user with a common name `temp1' has the attribute `mail' set to
`m.kozlow...@poczta.mini.pw.edu.pl'. Expected behavior: mail sent to
`m.kozlow...@poczta.mi
:-)
> The documented lookup key for local aliases(5) in the local(8)
> delivery agent is the bare localpart of the address "m.kozlowski"
> not "m.kozlow...@poczta.mini.pw.edu.pl".
>
> You're likely to have more luck with LDAP-based address to address
> rewriting via virtual_alias_maps not alias_m
:-)
> The documented lookup key for local aliases(5) in the local(8)
> delivery agent is the bare localpart of the address "m.kozlowski"
> not "m.kozlow...@poczta.mini.pw.edu.pl".
>
> You're likely to have more luck with LDAP-based address to address
> rewriting via virtual_alias_maps not alias_m
On 08/21/2014 02:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
>> Why didn't I have such error during the `RCPT TO:' phase? Why did it
>> "partially" worked - solved and continued to the `DATA' phase not failed
>> at all?
>
> That works &q
:-)
I wonder if it is possible. If so - thanks for any tips.
I'd like some `RCPT TO:' addresses accepted if and only if those mails
are send by local users - that is those authenticated via SASL. That is
for some selected `RCPT TO:'s :
permit_sasl_authenticated, reject
Best regards,
Mare
:-)
Maybe seems strange but...
With those settings my postfix (3.5.9) no broken connections are reported:
smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2, !SSLv3, !TLSv1.1
smtpd_tls_protocols = !SSLv2, !SSLv3, !TLSv1.1
But when I change to those:
smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2, !SSLv3, !TLSv1,
:-)
On 7/2/21 3:56 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 03:14:58PM +0200, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
It looks like '!TLSv1' is seen as something like
"!TLSv1.x" ("no TLS 1.x at all") rather than "!TLSv1.0". Yes it is a stup
:-)
I'd like to disable any mail from 'my.domain' from external networks and
non authenticated users. For envelope addresses my solution works and is
as follows:
At first bind valid addresses with their owners:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
...
reject_sender_login_mismatch,
:-)
I'd like to disable any mail from 'my.domain' from external networks and
non authenticated users. For envelope addresses my solution works and is
as follows:
At first bind valid addresses with their owners:
Precisely:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_sender_acces ...
c
:-)
On 7/2/21 5:02 PM, post...@ptld.com wrote:
Do you mean this literally? Stopping me from sending an email using my
mail server that claims to be from 'your.domain'?
You can't, you can only publish SPF records and hope the receiving mail
server of the spoofed email rejects it based on those
:-)
On 7/2/21 5:10 PM, post...@ptld.com wrote:
OK, small clarification:
I'd like to disable any mail from 'my.domain' from external networks
and non authenticated users...
...delivered to my users.
Making sure i understand, you are saying you want to stop me from using
my mail server from s
:-)
Due to SPF restrictions I'm interested in SRS address rewriting. For
this purpose I'm using postsrsd (do you have any better solution?). The
recommended configuration of postsrsd is quite simple and as follows
(main.cf):
sender_canonical_maps = tcp:localhost:10001
sender_canonical_classe
:-)
Some users forward their incoming mail to some external mail servers.
Unfortunately AFAIK with no action taken it may result in breaking the
SPF. The solution for this problem I know is rewriting addresses with
SRS (postsrsd). Unfortunately postsrsd uses the same settings as
canonicals do
:-)
Some users forward their incoming mail to some external mail servers.
Unfortunately AFAIK with no action taken it may result in breaking the
SPF. The solution for this problem I know is rewriting addresses with
SRS (postsrsd). Unfortunately postsrsd uses the same settings as
canonicals do wh
:-)
sender_canonical_maps = unionmap:{ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-canonical.cf,
ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-canonical2.cf, tcp:127.0.0.1:10001}
By design, unionmap can produce multiple results separated by comma.
That would be wrong. >
Why not:
sender_canonical_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-canonical.c
:-)
Let's assume my hostname is 'sth.mydomain.tld'
The following configuration:
#-
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_sender_access hash:/etc
:-)
I've been asked a very strange question. According to the best of my
knowledge there is no setting but maybe I'm wrong:
Is it possible the define a very selective relay according to the
following pseudo code:
/* a, b and c are set to some single values */
if (client's_IP==a)
if (MAIL
:-)
On 9/18/20 6:09 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:50:02AM +0200, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
I've been asked a very strange question. According to the best of my
knowledge there is no setting but maybe I'm wrong:
Is it possible the define a very selective relay
:-)
Well...
Let's imagine that my SMTP server is an MX for 'mydomain.tld' (and some
other ones). I've defined LDAP query for 'virtual_alias_maps', something
like:
virtual_alias_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf
The query file in some very simplified form can be expressed as:
server_h
As far as I can see the problem regards only mails sent from this server
(from local users). If there is a mail from a remote one it works fine,
that is:
Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
error occurs. Hmm?
On 9/22/20 4:43 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
Well
:-)
First of all. The Directory structure and the config may seems a little
bit strange but, in fact, there are some important historical reasons
(backward compatibility, many, many years ago we started with Novell NDS
and NetWare4 and so on...) for having it as described. It's worth
mentioni
:-)
I can't find the answer in both:
http://www.postfix.org/LDAP_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html
:-(
Is there a way of testing an LDAP (alias_maps = ldap:...) lookup table
apart of the postfix. I mean: for some set of addresses I'm not sure if
the result is as expected a
:-)
Must be simple... but I missed it.
I asked for it in the context on LDAP but I think I may simplify my
question:
Is it possible to accept mail if the recipients address is found in
virtual_alias_maps and reject in all other cases? Let's imagine I have
two entries for virtual_alias_maps:
:-)
Presumably it's my fault but I cannot find such an option. If so - thank
you for directing me to it. I'm wondering if it possible to limit
incoming mail with '...@somedomain.tld' specified as a sender address*)
to IPs belonging from some CIDR ranges:
- if addresses from the ranges belong
th sender's address 'sth3.tld' should be
accepted even if the user is not authenticated, and rejected without
authentication for other CIDR blocks.
Best regards,
Marek
On 2/7/21 5:33 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
Presumably it's my fault but I cannot find such an option. If
:-)
On 2/7/21 6:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-07 18:28, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
Mail from 192.168.3/24 with sender's address 'sth3.tld' should be
accepted even if the user is not authenticated, and rejected without
authentication for other CIDR blocks.
add 19
:-)
On 2/7/21 7:51 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 7 Feb 2021, at 12:52, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
On 2/7/21 6:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-07 18:28, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
Mail from 192.168.3/24 with sender's address 'sth3.tld' should be
accepted even if the user is no
:-)
I'm working on simplification, adding comments and brushing up my
main.cf. I've just found the following entry:
fork_attempts=10
Seems to be added manually so there was some reason for it.
Unfortunately there is no comment on it in the file. The documentation
is very short:
"Limit on
:-)
On 2/7/21 10:00 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Marek Kozlowski:
:-)
I'm working on simplification, adding comments and brushing up my
main.cf. I've just found the following entry:
fork_attempts=10
Seems to be added manually so there was some reason for it.
How many people
:-)
On 2/7/21 11:29 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Marek Kozlowski wrote:
No, such configurable limits are great. My question was different. I suppose
that many many years ago, many versions ago I had some problem with this
server and I tried to solve it or apply a quick fix by incrementing the
limit
:-)
I know that clamav and spamassassin are out of scope of this list. But
my question is more postfix-related. Most systems and Linux distros have
tutorials on postfix, spamassassin and clamav. In most of I've read the
recommended way of connecting clamav is via smtpd_milters in main.cf.
But
:-)
I mean protecting from the situation that one user's password has been
compromised and it results in a lot of spam in being sent by our server
(human's reaction takes a few minutes and it my be too much, I'm afraid).
I've found several useful settings in
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5
anvil_rate_time_unit
for that purpose?
Best regards,
Marek
On 3/3/21 1:09 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
I mean protecting from the situation that one user's password has been
compromised and it results in a lot of spam in being sent by our server
(human's reaction takes a few
:-)
When testing my server via telnet ... 25 it works:
MAIL FROM: <"">
250 2.1.0 Ok
Moreover an active 'reject_sender_login_mismatch' restriction not
blocked mail from SASL authenticated user (a compromised account) with
such an envelope address. What have I missed?
BTW:
MAIL FROM: <>
503
:-)
On 3/3/21 5:18 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 3 Mar 2021, at 9:51, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
When testing my server via telnet ... 25 it works:
MAIL FROM: <"">
250 2.1.0 Ok
Rejections in SMTP based on client, helo, and sender policy criteria are
normally postponed until the R
:-)
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit :
"The maximal number of recipient addresses that any client is allowed to
send to this service per time unit, regardless of whether or not Postfix
actually accepts those recipients."
I'm afraid I know several anvil related limits for *clients* rather tha
:-)
My postfix hostname is `mail.my.domain'.
DNS settings result in redirecting not only mail to
`some...@mail.my.domain' but also mail addressed to:
`sm...@programmers.my.domain', `jo...@office.my.domain', etc to this host.
`virtual_alias_maps' allow resolving:
sm...@programmers.my.domain -> sm
:-)
>> My postfix hostname is `mail.my.domain'.
>>
>> DNS settings result in redirecting not only mail to
>> `some...@mail.my.domain' but also mail addressed to:
>> `sm...@programmers.my.domain', `jo...@office.my.domain', etc to this host.
>>
>> `virtual_alias_maps' allow resolving:
>> sm...@progra
:-)
Is it possible: I'm looking for YES or NO and can't find in the docs.
Can I define a filter for a multivalued LDAP attribute to obtain a
single selected (pattern-matching) value?
Best regards,
Marek
:-)
Maybe a stupid question...
I'd like to allow incoming (or local) mail only addressed to aliases
specified in `vitual_alias_maps' and `alias_map' but reject recipient
addresses using user names.
For example I have a user `smithj' which has an alias (or virtual)
`john.smith'(@...). I'd like to ac
On 09/29/2014 08:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
>> Maybe a stupid question...
>> I'd like to allow incoming (or local) mail only addressed to aliases
>> specified in `vitual_alias_maps' and `alias_map' but reject recipient
>> addresses u
On 09/29/2014 08:39 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ]
>> On 09/29/2014 08:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Marek Kozlowski:
>>>> Maybe a stupid question...
>>>> I'd like to allow incoming (or local
On 09/29/2014 08:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Wietse Venema:
>>> Marek Kozlowski:
>>> [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ]
>>>> On 09/29/2014 08:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>>> Marek Kozlowski:
>>>>>> Mayb
:-)
The scenario:
For some reasons there are two mail servers: `myshost.mydomain' and
`mydomain'. `myhost.mydomain' uses LDAP servers (pam_ldap, nss_ldap) as
an authentication source. Users' email addresses are stored as an LDAP
attributes which are accessed via:
virtual_alias_maps = ldap:/etc/p
14 11:04 AM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> :-)
>
> The scenario:
>
> For some reasons there are two mail servers: `myshost.mydomain' and
> `mydomain'. `myhost.mydomain' uses LDAP servers (pam_ldap, nss_ldap) as
> an authentication source. Users' email addresse
On 09/30/2014 01:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ]
>> :-)
>>
>> The scenario:
>>
>> For some reasons there are two mail servers: `myshost.mydomain' and
>> `mydomain'. `myhost.mydomain' uses
On 09/30/2014 02:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
>> So the question is: can I "ignore" virtual map entries with domain names
>> not present in some list if I cannot edit the virtual_alias_maps source?
>
> See "man 5 ldap", and look for the
:-)
>> So: yes, I can deal with it. One again the question: Can I do it at
>> postfix (not postfix driver) level? Is there any postfix option which says:
>> "I'm serving only the following virtual domains; ignore those entries
>> in virtual_alias_maps that don't match it"?
>
> If you say "I'm se
:-)
> If you want to apply the same filter to MULTIPLE maps:
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> virtual_alias_maps =
> pipemap{pcre:/etc/postfix/domain_filter, ldap:/path/to/ldapfile}
> pipemap{pcre:/etc/postfix/domain_filter, mysql:/path/to/myselfile}
>
> /etc/postfix/domain_filter:
>
:-)
>> The first solution seems much better for me because there is one filter
>> defined and used for numerous sources. One list defined and stored in
>> one place. In the second case I have to modify each driver configuration
>
> No, the above example INSERTS the SAME FILTER into MULTPILE FILES
:-)
Two mail servers: `sth1.domain.tld' and `sth2.domain.tld'. Each serves
only one (non-virtual) domain. I need to transparently move a few user
accounts from `sth1' to `sth2'. That is: for some users the maildir is
moved from `sth1' to `sth2' and served (SMTP/IMAP) by `sth2' instead of
`sth1' bu
:-)
I'm wondering if it is possible for two parameters, let's say (not
particularly those, generally):
sender_canonical_maps = sth1, sth2, sth3
recipient_canonical_maps = sth4, sth5, sth6
(`sth' is any source, it doesn't matter I hope) to force the following
behavor:
1. For `sender_canonical_ma
On 02/15/2017 02:04 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> :-)
>
> I'm wondering if it is possible for two parameters, let's say (not
> particularly those, generally):
>
> sender_canonical_maps = sth1, sth2, sth3
> recipient_canonical_maps = sth4, sth5, sth6
>
> (`st
On 02/15/2017 04:26 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/15/2017 7:18 AM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> That is: `sender_canonical_maps' allows several rewrites for a single
>>> entry while `recipient_canonical_maps' only one (the very first found).
>>
>&
On 02/15/2017 05:07 PM, Mickaël DEQUIDT wrote:
>
> Le 15/02/2017 à 17:00, Marek Kozlowski a écrit :
>> But I don't want postsrsd to manipulate "from:" header fields. How can I
>> achieve it?
>
> I believe setting :
>
> sender_canonical_classes =
On 02/15/2017 02:18 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 02:04 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>> sender_canonical_maps = sth1, sth2, sth3
>
> One more question:
>
> Is it possible to apply different `sender_canonical_classes' for sth1,
> sth2 and sth3 respective
:-)
"The optional generic(5) table specifies an address mapping that applies
when mail is delivered. This is the opposite of canonical(5) mapping,
which applies when mail is received."
(http://www.postfix.org/generic.5.html)
Nice...
"With the smtp_generic_maps parameter you can specify generic
On 02/17/2017 07:41 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 12:04 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>> I'm searching for a possibbility of rewriting (senders') addresses only
>> for all mail originating from my system - no matter if it is local or
>> remote delivery. I mean:
On 02/17/2017 08:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 12:53 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>> When smithj authenticates via SASL to my server and sends e-mail from
>> `smi...@something.com' locally or remotely I'd like to replace it to
>> `j.sm...@sth.com'. Bu
:-)
unionmap (read-only)
A table that sends each query to multiple lookup tables and that
concatenates all found results, separated by comma. The table name
syntax is the same as for pipemap tables.
(http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html#types)
Seems a little unclear to me how it works
On 02/21/2017 08:00 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> Maybe by example. Let's assume:
I've just checked :-)
> virtual_alias_maps = unionmap:{sth1, sth2}
Note: `unionmap' available since postfix 3.0!
> What is the result of `rcpt to:' set to `someone1' in the or
On 02/22/2017 01:16 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
>>> virtual_alias_maps = unionmap:{sth1, sth2}
>>> if:
>>> `sth1' maps someone1 -> someone2
>>> `sth2' maps someone2 -> someone1
>>
>> ERROR! Message not delivered du
On 02/22/2017 12:37 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ]
>> On 02/22/2017 01:16 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Marek Kozlowski:
>>>>> virtual_alias_maps = unionmap:{sth1, sth2}
>>>>> if:
>>>&g
On 02/22/2017 03:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski:
>>>>>> Why in this case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `sth1': someone1 -> someone1,someone2
>>>>>> `sth2': someone2 -> someone3
>>>>
:-)
>> I won't answer to follow-up unless they are concrete enough (includinbg
>> Postfix build information) that they can be verified independently.
>
> I don't think that someone modified the sources cause that is ArchLinux
> which almost always fully relies on upstream; it never happens that t
On 02/22/2017 03:49 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> :-)
>
>>> I won't answer to follow-up unless they are concrete enough (includinbg
>>> Postfix build information) that they can be verified independently.
>>
>> I don't think that someone modified the s
:-)
I've had some problems with using unionmaps. Finally it showed that they
were caused by improper configuration of services in the `master.cf'. So
I have decided to improve my knowledge by studying how postfix services
really work and cooperate more thoroughly. I've started with:
http://www.po
On 02/26/2017 06:18 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Marek Kozlowski
>> wrote:
>>
>> Let's assume that services defined in `master.cf' are as follows:
>> -
On 02/26/2017 06:40 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
[...]
Thank you (and Wietse) very much for clarification!
Best regars,
Marek
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
:-)
I'm searching for a Sender Rewriting Scheme tool well integrated with
postfix. postsrsd seems nice and generally works nice however it causes
some problems if canonicals for all four addresses are used - it
operates on the same `sender_canonical_classes' and
`recipient_canonical_classes' setti
:-)
Not a postfix issue in fact... Forgive me, please!
I've found something like this: http://www.onyxbits.de/gnarwl/ So old so
abandoned, there is surely no forum/list/support/help on it. Is there -
by accident - anyone who used it and have integrated it with postfix?
Thanks in advance!
Best re
:-)
mydomain = mini.pw.edu.pl
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, $mydomain,
mail.$mydomain, www.$mydomain, ftp.$mydomain
relay_domains = $mydestination
I'm wondering why after telnet connection to port 25 the host accepts
any `RCPT TO:' addresses ending with `mini.pw.edu
On 05/18/2017 08:53 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/18/2017 1:32 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>> :-)
>>
>> mydomain = mini.pw.edu.pl
>> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, $mydomain,
>> mail.$mydomain, www.$mydomain, ftp.$mydomain
>> r
:-)
I'm reading http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html and I'm still not
quite sure. Both are performed by cleanup. What determines the order:
which goes first and which goes then? I can't find any variable
determining this... :-( Is it pre-defined (what order?). Can I force
changing the order?
:-)
>> I'm reading http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html and I'm still not
>> quite sure. Both are performed by cleanup. What determines the order:
>> which goes first and which goes then? I can't find any variable
>> determining this... :-( Is it pre-defined (what order?). Can I force
>> chan
On 06/03/2017 02:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message
>>> is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after
>>> the entire message is received.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after
:-)
On 06/04/2017 07:58 AM, Mark Scholten wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have a few forwarders where we need to change the "mail from" during the
> SMTP stage. Nothing else has to change and I know that spam would be seen as
> coming from our mail server if we forward it. This last part is acceptable
> f
:-)
Numerous users of my system use forward to external MTAs. From time to
time it causes some issues with SPF on those MTAs. SRS could resolve those.
I'm wondering if you could recommend any SRS software which nicely
integrates with postfix and doesn't interfere with canonicals (postsrsd
does[*])
On 06/08/2017 12:04 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Marek Kozlowski skrev den 2017-06-08 11:55:
>
>> [*]I need to rewrite both senders' addresses (`MAIL FROM:' and `From:')
>> for all outgoing mail with canonicals before SRS is applied. Moreover:
>> canonica
:-)
On 06/08/2017 12:38 PM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On 08/06/2017 10:55, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
>> :-)
>>
>> Numerous users of my system use forward to external MTAs. From time to
>> time it causes some issues with SPF on those MTAs. SRS could resolve
>> tho
:-)
I have all users in an LDAP database and store users' aliases, virtuals,
canonicals, forwards etc as attributes. For that purpose using the
`reject_sender_login_mismatch' seems to be a simple and powerful
solution for increasing security and I'm using it. Excluding some e-mail
addresses f
:-)
postfix + postsrsd + clamav + spamassassin + dovecot
Everything seems to work OK. No changes done recently (used to work for
a long long time). No error messages in logs. Some mails are delivered
correctly and immediately. Outgoing mail - OK. The problems are:
1. About 20-50 mails shown
W dniu 2018-11-14 16:07, Wietse Venema napisał(a):
A problem report without looking at the logs?
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
DO NOT turn on debug logging unless asked to do so.
Wietser
The ONLY entries matching include:
1. [warning,mail]postfix/postqueue[13925]:
W dniu 2018-11-14 17:33, Viktor Dukhovni napisał(a):
On Nov 14, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Marek Kozlowski
wrote:
The ONLY entries matching include:
1. [warning,mail]postfix/postqueue[13925]: warning: unix_trigger:
write to public/qmgr: Broken pipe
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisał(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
should say 'unix' not 'fifo'. Postfix stopped using the 'fifo' years
:-)
A new type of warning in logs found:
[warning,mail]postfix/master[458]: warning: master_wakeup_timer_event:
service pickup(public/pickup): Resource temporarily un
available
May I ask for some explanation?
Best regards,
Marek
:-)
On 11/14/18 8:40 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Marek Kozlowski:
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisa?(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
On 11/14/18 10:01 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
On 11/14/18 8:40 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Marek Kozlowski:
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisa?(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the
:-)
On 11/14/18 11:25 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
Your kernel's UNIX-domain stack is messed up, or some 'security'
system is interfering with proper operation.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24
Well. I've disconnec
:-)
I know the basic postfix operational scheme:
http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html
I have a generic spamassassin instance that marks messages recognized as
spam, `/etc/postfix/master.cf' :
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o content_filter=spamassassin
spa
:-)
ArchLinux?
It's a rolling release one. Install any version then run `pacman -Suy'
for upgrade to the most recent packages in repos. Quick and simple (but
it is a systemd Linux :-( )
Best regards,
Marek
On 3/8/19 1:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Which distro ships with Linux 5.x kernels? I
:-)
Or instead of downloading and installing download a qemu image of ArchLinux:
http://pages.mini.pw.edu.pl/~kozlowskim/archv.qcow2
It' s an up-to-date qemu image prepared for my students.
Best regards,
Marek
On 3/8/19 1:32 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
ArchLinux?
It's a rolli
:-)
My postfix configuration is quite complex with a lot of special cases
and rules. However I'd like to make an anti-spam configuration as simple
and lightweight as possible (KISS).
/etc/postfix/master.cf
smtp inet
:-)
I have the standard, commonly mentioned spamassassin configuration for
postfix:
/etc/postfix/master.cf
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o content_filter=spamassassin
spamassassin unix
94 matches
Mail list logo
