After many years I noticed in my current config that the local users aren't
working properly.
Specifically I have a hostname in "mydestination" (h7.zynet2.co.uk) and I want
to accept email for "r...@h7.zynet2.co.uk"
This email is currently delivered correctly if submitted from a trusted user
o
On Thursday 28 May 2009 14:41:30 Marcio Merlone wrote:
>
> That would be great, I have some servers wich sends nothing but
> administrative mails to me, logcheck, crontab, such annoying things.
> They need nothing more than a bare bones MTA wich is able to send mails
> to a relay host.
Debian has
The date inside the mail (on the "Date:" header) was for February.
Since spam is junk there is no reason to expect this date to be valid,
spammers frequently use future or past dates to end up at the top or the
bottom of the in tray and thus more prominent and more likely to be read.
Sometimes
One domain is advertising an MX record of "0.0.0.0" which postfix correctly
reports as "numeric domain name in resource data of MX record for ..."
Then (on Linux at least), Postfix connects to "0.0.0.0" and then logs a couple
of messages complaining it is trying to talk to itself.
I'm not sure
On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
>
> Is there any solution?
> I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
> sender. Is it possible with postfix?
As Ralph says SRS will do this.
However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need
On Monday 12 April 2010 16:53:10 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:50:02AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > There is no IMAP client that I'm aware of that can 'save' a message to
> > to the Sent folder.
>
> They all do it, that's how messages end up in the Sent folder, you
> are c
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 08:16:47 Bob Eastbrook wrote:
>
Your post appears mangled beyond hope of direct assistance.
> Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied
This implies that your server rejected it. So where is the log from your
server?
The DNS config you give appears to be a case
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:16:49 Bob Eastbrook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
> > Your post appears mangled beyond hope of direct assistance.
>
> Are you saying that the message was improperly formatted?
No I'm saying I don't think
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 16:32:03 motty.cruz wrote:
> Hello, I seemed to be losing the fight against backscatter email, one of
> our users is getting tons of backscatter spam a day. I'm using postfix
> Mail_version 2.7.0 + amavisd (Spamassassin) on FreeBSD machine. Please
> help!
Did you try this
On Monday 19 April 2010 09:51:52 mohamad rahimi wrote:
> In our group we are using suse and
> Postfix SMTP server. Every thing was fine until last month when we
> restart our mail server and also firewall.
> The first problem is that when we use
> Thunderbird with security and Authentication it is
On Monday 19 April 2010 18:34:59 Aaron Clausen wrote:
> This has probably been asked a hundred times before, but a client of
> mine has requested the ability to reject emails if their spam score is
> above a certain score, rather than marking it as spam. Is this a
> possibility with Postfix?
As n
On Tuesday 27 April 2010 17:24:35 Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> $ < /tmp/data pcregrep -c Postfix
> 134368
If we are hijacking the thread for how to convince suits to use Postfix...
Picking an MTA based only on popularity would have got you sendmail until
fairly recently, and I don't think
On Tuesday 08 June 2010 12:04:36 Ockleford Paul (NHS Connecting for Health)
wrote:
> I would be grateful if anybody is able to offer some assistance.
>
> mime_header_checks
>
> #!/^\s*Content-(Disposition|Type).*name\s*=\s*"{1,1}.+\.(ecf)"{1,1}\s*$/!/n
>ame=[^>]*\.(ecf)/ WARN Would normally reject
On Thursday 10 June 2010 19:51:51 Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> One of the tricks some people seem to use is creating a dedicated
> transport for the slow destination. I'm reading the tuning and qshape
> README documents, and there are a lot of good suggestions there, but I
> was wondering what are the
On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote:
> currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
> permit
>
> Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
> should I just let spamassassin
On Friday 25 June 2010 16:06:26 Mark Krenz wrote:
>
> They also think that because we leave
> that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists.
Ask for the bounced emails or other evidence for why they believe this.
I've seen all sorts of misunderstanding from people looking at such thin
On Monday 12 July 2010 20:53:46 Phil Howard wrote:
> I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
> the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
> transport) for this one. Attempts to send mail to
> postmas...@newdomain.example.com gets "Relay access deni
On Friday 27 August 2010 10:52:46 Adam PAPAI wrote:
>
> It seems postfix keeps-up 8-10-15 connections always, but i guess 2 or 3
> would be enough. The queries are very quick, so it's not necessary to
> keep the SQL connection open.
>
> The documentation does not mention any part of this issue.
Re
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 11:17:25 Arthur Titeica wrote:
>
> In: EHLO [::z:z:::fe79:ccd9]
> Could someone share some thought about it?
Not seen this myself, and only starting to learn IPv6 but
EHLO tag not conforming with RFC2821 4.1.3 should start [IPV6 for an IPv6 tag
so
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 16:57:16 Stefan Seidel wrote:
>
> Really, I don't care about NDNs
> for _forwarded_ mail, esp. since most of the mail traffic on this address
> is from mailing lists.
Most mailing lists can automatically detect dead accounts using NDN - but your
choice to do it manually
On Thursday 02 September 2010 14:26:33 Zhou, Yan wrote:
>
> I observed that the transport only get one single message with multiple
> TO: address in it. So, this means my transport should do the work of
> sending to multiple destinations?
If it is an SMTP transport yes the remote end should do tha
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 10:11:02 Sharma, Ashish wrote:
>
> Sep 7 04:53:55 ip-10-194-99-63 postfix/smtpd[942]: fatal: open database
> /etc/postfix/blockList.db: No such file or directory Sep 7 04:53:56
> ip-10-194-99-63 postfix/master[938]: warning: process
> /usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd pid 94
On Tuesday 14 September 2010 13:51:12 CT wrote:
>
> Does Postfix do an MX lookup on "inbound mail" as part of
> "spam" prevention or some other check.. ?
Mind has "check_sender_mx_access" so and logs appropriate messages if the MX
results are unacceptable.
What are you trying to achieve, as it
On Monday 20 September 2010 14:18:16 Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL wrote:
>
> Not really Postfix related, but maybe you can share your thoughts...
Definitely not Postfix related.
> As far as I understand from the whole SPF perspective, shouldn't a Soft
> Fail be a 4** error and re-try,
So
On Thursday 02 July 2009 10:21:35 Umar wrote:
>
> : host mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.92.152] said: 550 OU-002 Mail
> rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. Reasons for
> rejection
> may be related to content with spam-like characteristics or IP/domain
> reputation problems. If
On Tuesday 07 July 2009 16:15:06 Michael Durket wrote:
>
> So what's the best way to quickly (i.e. less than a few seconds) get the
> current queue count out of Postfix?
man qshape
On Tuesday 14 July 2009 10:20:09 Jacky Chan wrote:
>
> I would like to ask if the size of message exceeds the one defined in
> main.cf, how can I configure Postfix to generate a bounce or error notice
> to user/admins?
User?
On our boxes it returns an appropriate error code to the sender (who is
On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:41:59 ram wrote:
>
> If I enable cisco pix workarounds on a high traffic outgoing server ,
> what are the performance impacts on that
Judging from today's log files on my postfix box the default configuration
enables these as needed.
Jul 16 11:36:10 servername postfix
On Thursday 16 July 2009 15:26:01 ram wrote:
>
> For all outgoing mails, the mails are going through a PIX.
> Will my outgoing performance be hit then
The advice is usually to disable the PIX SMTP fix-up because it is buggy,
aside from issues of load. This may have security implications.
On Thursday 16 July 2009 17:19:23 Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> People publishing multiple PTR records are IMHO misguided.
I fear the folks who wrote RFC1033 used the term "official name" for where a
reverse PTR record should point. I'm sure they meant "canonical", which I'm
assured is an outdated
Winnow from winnowing.
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 16:53:52 Linux Addict wrote:
>
> I tried using transport maps, "example.com :[smtp1.example.com]"
> and " example.com smtp:[smtp1.example.com], but of them didn't use
> smtp.example.com.
Not clear what you mean here.
Documentation of "transport" (man transport)
On Thursday 23 July 2009 14:53:01 John Mok wrote:
>
> I am new to Postfix. Is Postfix capable to build the cluster without
> local user accounts on the servers?
Yes.
See virtual_mailbox_maps, virtual_mailbox_domains etc
http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#virtual_mailbox
When I designe
On Monday 27 July 2009 10:40:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
>
> I'm using a couple of anti-spam techniques which successfully reject
> (5xx) or ban (ipfilter firewall rule) most spam before even getting in
> the queue.
You use a LOT of blacklists, which probably results in more false positives
than
On Monday 27 July 2009 11:13:34 Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
> want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
>
> m...@desjors.nl
> pay...@desjors.nl
> deb...@desjors.nl
They could use the "recipient_delimiter"
On Friday 31 July 2009 18:16:35 Ing. Davy Leon wrote:
>
> I have a Centos 5.3 with postfix 2.3.3. I'm using Amavisd-new and clamav
> for virus checking. My server daily receive lots of messages with JPG files
> attached. The number of JPF files in each message is variable. My question
> is. When re
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:08:06 John King wrote:
>
> My question is - based on several postings where people advise that x line
> should precede y line or be listed after z - with regards to the auth
> sections and recipient restrictions etc etc... Is there a set order in
> which these elemts sh
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:19:10 Hose wrote:
>
> We currently use the default recipient_delimiter of '+', but I've been
> receiving requests to change it to a '.' as some sites will not
> sanity-check properly with the plus, but will do it with the period. Is
> there an easy way to migrate from
Getting warnings below from our monthly mailshot.
Last month I fiddled trying to slow hotmail delivery by adding:
main.cf
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 100
fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 9
fragile_destination_rate_delay
On Thursday 20 August 2009 10:01:37 Paul Hutchings wrote:
> We have a basic distribution list setup within postfix under a virtual
> domain.
>
> One of the external parties who wants to sent to it has an SPF record in
> place so of course in its current configuration the message is being
> rejected
On Tuesday 08 September 2009 13:30:32 bsd wrote:
>
> Can I mix both type of accounts / config (local with Unix type &&
> virtual) ?
Answer is simply yes.
Just add relevant virtual mailbox settings to main.cf.
Unless it is overly complex, my migration plan would be enable "soft_bounce",
add rel
I have started receiving the transcript below from one of our email servers.
The pattern is consistent with one email queued and being retried from
serv1.copahost.com, i.e. it repeats from same host, but less and less
frequently as if backing off.
I've tried to contact the remote admin to see i
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 11:38:36 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Simon Waters:
> > In: RCPT TO:
> > Out: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error
>
> The details are logged to the MAILLOG file.
Darn missed it when I looked.
Oct 13 06:30:57 bannerman postfix/smtpd[17691]: w
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 15:40:32 Iseli, Erich wrote:
>
> I then had a look at the messages kept in /var/spool/postfix/hold with
> postcat and I couldn't believe my eyes: actually postfix must be mangling
> something since the "from"-address is absolutely correct!
> sender: @domain.com
The sen
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 02:14:14 Alberto Lepe wrote:
>
> Hello, I'm creating a script to help me to enhance the spamassassin rules.
> As many of you may know already some spam mails add false X-Spam-Status
> headers to the mail like this one:
>
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
I believe AOL add the same he
On Monday 26 October 2009 16:03:56 Harakiri wrote:
>
> Thanks, is there a particular reason why postfix itself can read config
> from any user like for maps etc - but proxymap cant? The only way i see now
> is to add my user to the group of postfix.
Because proxymap is running as user postfix? Sys
On Monday 02 November 2009 14:38:36 Peter Macko wrote:
>
> > You want postfix to generate a bounce back to the sender
> > rather than correctly refusing the mail? Why?
>
> Because the sender do not receive any notification, that he sent a message
> to invalid user.
It sounds like an AVG problem.
On Monday 02 November 2009 20:30:00 /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> Please note that the question itself is a matter of GIGO. The munged
> IP address cannot be in mynetworks according to the postconf shown,
> because it was rejected, not accepted then bounced.
I get this behaviour with permit_mynetworks and
On Monday 16 November 2009 14:27:19 Eero Volotinen wrote:
> Quoting Laurence Moughan :
> > Thanks Eero,
> >
> > But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix
> > be able to resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are
> > pointing at same ns )
>
> No, ask dns admin to f
On Monday 16 November 2009 15:08:08 Eero Volotinen wrote:
> > Possibly make sense for DNS servers to reject such records? I have seen a
> > proliferation of same, most of which were cut and paste from Google's web
> > page.
>
> Sounds like very poor dns management, maybe you can change dns service
On Friday 20 November 2009 15:52:13 J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> If it's a collection of different logfiles adding up to 4KB in size per
> email, then you might want to recheck your syslog-configuration.
Probably pays to know what file system and mount options are applicable here
as well.
As I find
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 17:12:48 Tony Rogers wrote:
>
> My domain is example.com - the server relays all mail for *...@example.com
> to an exchange server.
>
> I have a requirement where I need to redirect email for u...@example.com
> to u...@bloggs.com.
>
> u...@example.com does not exist on o
On Monday 14 December 2009 14:24:34 Jaroslaw Grzabel wrote:
>
> What postfix does ? Reject all messages until
> I will not be notified and remove the database and let postfix to
> recreate it again.
It refreshes cache at 3 hours by default, so within 3 days jon starts getting
email (and spam pote
On Monday 14 December 2009 14:35:39 Simon Waters wrote:
>
> It refreshes cache at 3 hours by default, so within 3 days jon starts
Oops 3 hours even.
I suspect I know the answer - but it doesn't hurt to ask.
I have a Postfix config set up which uses 4 mysql maps to create role
based emails for a (large) set of clubs.
The rules in the SQL aren't stunningly complex but they are non-trivial.
I'd prefer not to implement them in several places,
On 01/05/13 15:31, Wietse Venema wrote:
Is there any problem with using "sendmail -bv"? The output format
(the second and thord part) is meant to be machine-readable.
I want to report the value of 30 or 40 redirects in a single web page.
I want to generate that report when someone requests th
On 02/05/13 08:12, Axel Luttgens wrote:
Le 1 mai 2013 à 17:15, Simon Waters a écrit :
[...]
Secondary question - can I force the output of "sendmail -bv" to go
to a specific email address - seems always to go to the invoker -
e.g. can I easily send this to the end users email addres
57 matches
Mail list logo
