[P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On March 7, 2023 11:37:53 PM UTC, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users wrote: >On 3/7/23 15:28, John Stoffel via Postfix-users wrote: >>> "mailmary---" == mailmary--- via Postfix-users >>> writes: >> >>> Unfortunately I've seen this crash as well, its actually quite >>> frequent in my

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: Postfix lists are migrating to a new list server

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 1:52:47 AM EST Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix- users wrote: > * Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users : > > ... > > > > For Debian, if someone can find/test patches, I can get them into Debian's > > package. I assume other distributors a

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

On Friday, March 10, 2023 7:04:30 AM EST Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users wrote: > * Gerald Galster via Postfix-users : > > > >>> This list uses Mailman configuration settings, not handcrafted code. > > >>> If people believe that it is worthwhile to change the Mailman > > >>> implementation

[pfx] Re: milter: could it splice (, somehow)?

On March 11, 2023 6:05:52 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote: >postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in > : > |On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 01:54:01AM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\ > |sers wrote: > | > |> - sign the entire message as for now, > | > |You're confusing the message and

[pfx] Re: MySQL error from not all the receiver

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 7:02:41 PM EDT Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote: > > unfortunately I don't know this topic, but I'm really willing to study. > > Please do you have any documentation on this? > Sorry, I can't recommend an up to date howto. Perhaps other list members can > help. > >

[pfx] Re: [P-U] Re: New List Host and Reply-to Header

On March 24, 2023 10:50:35 PM UTC, raf via Postfix-users wrote: >On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:11:58AM +1300, Peter via Postfix-users > wrote: > >> * Don't add a Reply-To:. I actually question if this is really needed as we >> likely want replies to go to the list the vast majority of time anyw

[pfx] Re: simple content filter for outgoing message

On April 6, 2023 11:39:10 AM UTC, Corey Hickman via Postfix-users wrote: >Hello buddies, > >I just want to make some simple filters for outgoing messages. >for example, the message content has some keywords (like "VPN sale") included, >it will be rejected by the system. > >I know there are th

[pfx] Re: Question to reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org

On April 10, 2023 4:52:04 AM UTC, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote: >On 2023-04-10 12:39, Peter via Postfix-users wrote: >> On 10/04/23 14:21, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote: >>> I have resolved the issue by: >>> >>> 1. install unbound as dns resolver locally >> >> This is good. >> >>> 2. chan

[pfx] Re: SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record

On April 12, 2023 2:00:01 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote: >Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote in > : > |On 12.04.23 12:41, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote: > ... > |>Does it mean that I should either: > |> > |> 1) create SPF record for mail.mydomain.com > ... > |I would

[pfx] Re: DKIM questions

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:12:23 PM EDT Ken Peng via Postfix-users wrote: > Hello > > Can the domain certificates sign its sub domain? > For example, mail.a.com was signed by certs of a.com. > If so, does this make sense to DMRC of mail.a.com? Yes. If I understand the second question correctly

[pfx] Re: DKIM and DMARC

On May 16, 2023 12:16:21 PM UTC, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote: >Hello list, > >Should we reject failed message on DKIM validation stage, or DMARC >validation stage, or both? No and it depends. DKIM has no policy mechanism associated with it, so there's no basis in any standardized mecha

[pfx] Re: [pfx]: DKIM and DMARC

On May 16, 2023 1:20:53 PM UTC, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users wrote: >* Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users : > >> DKIM has no policy mechanism associated with it, so there's no basis in any >> standardized mechanism to determine if a DKIM failure should be caus

[pfx] Re: Is it possible in postfix spf policy to utilize multiple action=prepend to add multiple headers?

On June 19, 2023 9:44:59 PM UTC, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: >On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 09:12:29PM +, Anton Hvornum via Postfix-users >wrote: > >> Yea found libmilter, appears to have some python bindings too. > >You don't need to go that far down the stack. Try the "Milter" p

[pfx] Re: Typo in man postconf ("Postix")

On July 3, 2023 9:43:39 PM UTC, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: >On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 06:19:26AM +1000, Trent W. Buck via Postfix-users >wrote: > >> master:postfix/proto/postconf.proto:6450: This feature is available in >> Postix 2.10 and later. >> master:postfix/proto/stop:1185

[pfx] Re: Typo in man postconf ("Postix")

On July 3, 2023 10:04:05 PM UTC, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: >On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:52:28PM +0000, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users >wrote: > >> >Should I ask WTF BTS? >> >> Bug Tracking System. No. > >I see... The Postfix project does

[pfx] Re: Recommendation for dkim signing

On Monday, October 30, 2023 3:10:22 PM EDT Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:06:46AM +0100, Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users wrote: > > We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services, > > and there are multiple ways to implement that. >

[pfx] Re: Recommendation for dkim signing

On November 2, 2023 10:18:38 AM UTC, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote: >Dnia 2.11.2023 o godz. 09:42:01 Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users >pisze: >> (once more: DKIM applies on header From:, SPF on envelope from:). > >And DMARC requires that both be identical (actually, from the

[pfx] Re: Recommendation for dkim signing

On November 6, 2023 10:51:06 AM UTC, Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users wrote: >* Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users : >> Hi! >> >> We are looking into implementing DKIM signing for one of our services, >> and there are multiple ways to implement that. >> >> So far I have found that you ca

[pfx] Re: Recommendation for dkim signing

On November 6, 2023 12:39:35 PM UTC, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote: > > >On November 6, 2023 10:51:06 AM UTC, Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users > wrote: >>* Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users : >>> Hi! >>> >>> We are looking

[pfx] Re: Milter own Postfix-prepended Received

On December 10, 2023 3:54:13 PM UTC, Carlos Velasco via Postfix-users wrote: > >Wietse Venema via Postfix-users escribió el 10/12/2023 a las 15:53: >> Carlos Velasco via Postfix-users: >>> 2. Duplicated SMTP Access Policy Delegation >>> This issue is related to headers too. >>> I'm using pypoli

[pfx] Re: sasl_passwd hash

Cyrus SASL mailing lists can be found here: https://cyrus.topicbox.com/groups Scott K On December 17, 2023 1:45:02 PM UTC, "saunders.nicholas--- via Postfix-users" wrote: >Would you be able to point me to anyone there, or a contact? > >I'm not seeing any contact information. > >thanks, > >Nick

[pfx] Re: SMTP Smuggling, workarounds and fix

On December 30, 2023 3:17:52 PM UTC, "Håkon Alstadheim via Postfix-users" wrote: >Just FYI, I got postfix 3.7.9-0+deb12u1 from bookworm-updates (i.e. Debian) >today. > For those still using Debian Bullseye (oldstable), postfix 3.5.23-0+deb11u1 is also available from bullseye-updates. Both of

[pfx] Re: postfix repo

On January 11, 2024 2:53:35 PM UTC, natan via Postfix-users wrote: >Hi Wietse Have you thought about postfix repo for Debian, just like dovecot >has for his relase ? > >I'm asking by the way Current postfix updates for supported Debian releases are available through Debian: https://lists.d

[pfx] Re: postfix repo

On January 16, 2024 3:11:37 AM UTC, Peter via Postfix-users wrote: >On 12/01/24 04:08, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: >> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users: >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 03:53:35PM +0100, natan via Postfix-users wrote: Hi Wietse Have you thought about postfix repo fo

[pfx] Postfix and reproducible builds

In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here: reproducible-builds.org It looks like Postfix as shipped is very close to being reproducible. We got positive results on reproducibility with the patch below added. Is this something you could include in a future relea

[pfx] Re: Postfix and reproducible builds

It looks to me like it does fix it. Thanks, Scott K On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EST Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users: > > In case anyone is unfamiliar, you can read about reproducible builds here: > > reproducible-builds.

[pfx] Re: Postfix and reproducible builds

I expected the same, but our CI test for reproducibility passed without it. I was surprised. Hopefully I'm about to learn something. Scott K On January 30, 2024 4:00:59 PM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: >On 30.01.24 10:12, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrot

[pfx] Re: problem to add, alias failed

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 1:57:18 PM EST Maurizio Caloro via Postfix-users wrote: > if adding a new user with postfixadmin 3.3.8 or with cli this will run > without problem. > > > > GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON mailserver.* TO markus@'domain.com > ' IDENTIFIED BY > '**

[pfx] Re: Milter multiline header formatting

On March 6, 2024 7:37:47 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote: >Hello Wietse Venema :) > >Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in > <4tqhxw0ksyzj...@spike.porcupine.org>: > |Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users: > |> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in > |> <4tqh100n6pzj...@sp

[pfx] Re: Postfix stable release 3.9.0

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 12:09:51 PM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Postfix stable release 3.9.0 is available. Postfix 3.5 - 3.8 were > updated earlier this week; after that, Postfix 3.5 will no longer > be updated. > > The main changes are below. See the RELEASE_NOTES file for fu

[pfx] Re: long header folding and DKIM fails

On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote: >Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in > : > |Thanks very much for the detailed response. My original issue was why \ > |dkim signatures were failing on some emails from email lists when arriving \ > |at my Postfix based

[pfx] Re: dmarc domain question

On June 2, 2024 3:05:58 PM UTC, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote: >Dnia 2.06.2024 o godz. 07:19:38 Jeff P via Postfix-users pisze: >> >> I am using a subdomain xxx.eu.org for sending email. >> Though I have not set a dmarc for xxx.eu.org, but gmail says DMARC pass. >> So i checked that

[pfx] Re: SPF format question

On June 9, 2024 12:17:38 PM UTC, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote: >Hello > >If I have a mx server: mx.host.com whose ip is 1.2.3.4. > >The domain.com who use this mx server may have the following SPF. > >v=spf1 mx ~all >v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 ~all >v=spf1 a:mx.host.com ~all >v=spf1 mx:domain.com

[pfx] Re: spf and Permerror

On June 27, 2024 1:30:37 PM UTC, natan via Postfix-users wrote: >Hi >I have a strange problem with SPF and I honestly don't know what to pay >attention to > >What is a Permerror in SPF >In log i get: > >Jun 27 15:09:11 MX policyd-spf[57158]: prepend Received-SPF: Permerror >(mailfrom) identit

[pfx] Re: Cyrus SASL summary

On Friday, July 5, 2024 4:00:59 AM EDT Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 05:01:41PM -, John Levine via Postfix-users > wrote: > > > OK, I'll invent a user. Perhaps if we can get Scott to undo the control > > file move he can add a sasl user at the same time.

[pfx] Re: Cyrus SASL summary

On July 5, 2024 3:03:58 PM UTC, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: >On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 08:45:49AM -0400, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users >wrote: > >> > Note, "undo" isn't quite what I'm suggesting, rather I hope Debian will >> >

[pfx] Re: spf and Permerror

x-users pisze: >> >> natan via Postfix-users escribió el 27/06/2024 a las 15:48: >>> W dniu 27.06.2024 o 15:39, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users pisze: >>> Hi Scott >>> Jun 27 15:39:06 MX policyd-spf[3729]: prepend Received-SPF: Permerror >>>

[pfx] Re: Cyrus SASL summary

On Friday, July 5, 2024 4:00:59 AM EDT Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 05:01:41PM -, John Levine via Postfix-users > wrote: > > > OK, I'll invent a user. Perhaps if we can get Scott to undo the control > > file move he can add a sasl user at the same time.

[pfx] Re: Postfix and reproducible builds

' | sed 's/^/# /' | sort echo "# shared=$shared" echo "# dynamicmaps=$dynamicmaps" echo "# pie=$pie" It would be great if you could apply this in a future release. Thanks, Scott K On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:14:09 AM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users w

[pfx] Re: Postfix and reproducible builds

On Sunday, July 21, 2024 1:21:47 PM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users: > > Unfortunately, I got distracted from reporting back on this again. > > Sorting > > AUXLIBS is also needed to make things reproducible: > >

[pfx] Re: Postfix and reproducible builds

On Monday, July 22, 2024 12:51:33 PM EDT Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users: > > On a possibly related note, recent versions of man now produce a stack of > > warnings for postconf.f (this is the first one, there are 244, one for > > eac

[pfx] Re: email header questions

On August 4, 2024 11:02:30 PM UTC, Corey H via Postfix-users wrote: >Authentication-Results: mxi-2.vivaldi.net; > dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=xx.eu.org > header.i=@xx.eu.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=xx header.b=doqA0zf0; > dkim-atps=neutral > >for the DKIM h

[pfx] Re: New Installation, Old User, Questions

On September 30, 2024 4:00:32 AM UTC, 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

[pfx] Re: From/Reply-To munging (was Postfix in containers/kubernetes)

On October 18, 2024 3:17:04 PM UTC, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users wrote: >* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]: >> The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman >> workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF). > >"From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe).

[pfx] Re: Postfix on Debian 12 (vs exim4)

On October 1, 2024 3:19:42 AM UTC, Crazy Developer via Postfix-users wrote: >Hello > >Long time ago I used Postfix to send automated emails to customers >(Slackware, 10+ years ago), then moved to another job and I stopped using >it. Now I'm working on a local network and just configured a loca

[pfx] Debian Postfix Maintainer Update

For those of you who care about Debian (and to some extent its derivatives), I'm passing maintainership of the Debian Postfix package to Michael Tokarev. He's been a long term participant in both Debian and the Postfix community. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed me

[pfx] Re: Incoming OpenDKIM signature verification failing

On May 10, 2025 5:57:34 PM UTC, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote: >Mime-version was listed as a signed header but was absent. > >I suspect his header checks cleaned that out. > >Note that having a header listed in the H equals list, but having that header >be absent is legal, but I don’t kn