On 28.07.24 16:59, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote:
How do folks monitor the health of their postfix installations?
log monitoring seems to be essential, rates of warning/error messages
seem meaningful. Then there are the statistics regularly emitted, but
these seem more indicative of
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 05:45:51PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:40:45AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > * Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
> >
> > > > Is this intentional or a side-effect?
> > >
> > > I'm guessing you
On 28/07/24 17:58, Walt E via Postfix-users wrote:
Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account for this
domain?
I asked this is b/c one of our domains has millions of users, and a people
registered the postmaster account (surely it's due to our mistake in work) with
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:40:45AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> * Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
>
> > > Is this intentional or a side-effect?
> >
> > I'm guessing you have "smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = yes"?
>
> Yes.
>
> > In that case, this'd be expected.
>
>
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
> > Is this intentional or a side-effect?
>
> I'm guessing you have "smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = yes"?
Yes.
> In that case, this'd be expected.
OK! I was just wondering if I missed a reference somewhere in the
docs, since I didn't really see this being
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:28:51AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Ever so often I'm using transport entries to bounce typo domains or
> "noreply" addresses prior to the expiration after
> $maximum_queue_lifetime.
>
> Something like:
> noreplytoMMS.telekom.de error:5.1.2
Hi!
ever so often im using transport entries to bounce typo domains or
"noreply" addresses prio to the expiration after $maximum_queue_lifetime.
Something like:
noreplytoMMS.telekom.de error:5.1.2 Doesn't accept mail
But I noticed that this also causes mails with the sender
domain/address
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 04:59:48PM -0400, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Finally, what are the various queues?
> https://www.postfix.org/QSHAPE_README.html mentions maildrop, hold,
> incoming, active & deferred,
Which are where you might find a given message.
> but I also see
Hi,
How do folks monitor the health of their postfix installations?
log monitoring seems to be essential, rates of warning/error messages
seem meaningful. Then there are the statistics regularly emitted, but
these seem more indicative of busyness.
Finally, monitoring queue sizes is probably
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
wrote:
* Walt E. via Postfix-users:
Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account
for this domain?
Yes. The requirement has been specified as early as 1981 in RFC 822, and
in its successors up to
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:37:19PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but the chrooted smtpd(8) process reads:
> > >
> > > /var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
> > >
> > > rather than
* A. Schulze via Postfix-users:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.1
>
> 5321 btw...
Indeed, that was an unfortunate typo on my end. Thanks, Andreas.
-Ralph
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:37:19PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the chrooted smtpd(8) process reads:
> >
> > /var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
> >
> > rather than /etc/resolv.conf, because that's what chroot jails
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:37:19PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Yes, but the chrooted smtpd(8) process reads:
>
> /var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
>
> rather than /etc/resolv.conf, because that's what chroot jails do.
>
And the same applies to /etc/hosts,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:00:30AM +, Laura Smith via Postfix-users wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:45:45AM +, Laura Smith via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The reporting program is postfix/smtpd
> > >
> > > postconf output:
> > >
> > > smtp inet n - y - - smtpd
> >
> >
>
>
> > I know you're desperately trying to finger point elsewhere but I'm
> > pretty sure you are barking up the wrong tree. Everything else
> > works, apart from postfix.
>
>
> At the risk of demonstrating my level of thick I have seen similar
> messages about "Temporary failure in name
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
wrote:
> * Walt E. via Postfix-users:
>
> > Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account
> > for this domain?
>
> Yes. The requirement has been specified as early as 1981 in RFC 822, and
> in its
On Sun, 2024-07-28 at 11:00 +, Laura Smith via Postfix-users wrote:
> I know you're desperately trying to finger point elsewhere but I'm
> pretty sure you are barking up the wrong tree. Everything else
> works, apart from postfix.
At the risk of demonstrating my level of thick I have seen
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:45:45AM +, Laura Smith via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > The reporting program is postfix/smtpd
> >
> > postconf output:
> >
> > smtp inet n - y - - smtpd
>
>
> It runs in a chroot jail, where likely /etc/resolv.conf or related
> files are different from the
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:45:45AM +, Laura Smith via Postfix-users wrote:
> The reporting program is postfix/smtpd
>
> postconf output:
>
> smtp inet n - y - - smtpd
It runs in a chroot jail, where likely /etc/resolv.conf or related
files are different
> > But I cannot understand why. Running, e.g. "dig foo.example.com"
> > returns instantly with the IP address, no problems with resolution?
>
>
> Are you typing that command as root? Most Postfix daemons don't.
>
Yes, of course ! dig is a simple command that doesn't require root
Am 28.07.24 um 10:03 schrieb Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users:
Yes. The requirement has been specified as early as 1981 in RFC 822, and
in its successors up to and including RFC 5322.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.1
5321 btw...
Andreas
* Walt E. via Postfix-users:
> Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account
> for this domain?
Yes. The requirement has been specified as early as 1981 in RFC 822, and
in its successors up to and including RFC 5322.
-Ralph
___
Is there any standard that, postmaster@domain is a required account for this
domain?
I asked this is b/c one of our domains has millions of users, and a people
registered the postmaster account (surely it's due to our mistake in work) with
that domain as his personal email.
Our lawyer
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> I'm getting the following in my logs:
>
> "warning: connect to pgsql server foo.example.com: could not
> translate host name "foo.example.com" to address: Temporary failure
> in name resolution?"
That is a text from the pgsql library.
> But I cannot understand
Note that my copy/paste messed up the formatting, of course my user= line is on
a seperate line:
hosts=foo.example.com
user=myuser
password=mypass
dbname=mydb
query=select foo from bar('%s')
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
I'm getting the following in my logs:
" warning: connect to pgsql server foo.example.com: could not translate host
name "foo.example.com" to address: Temporary failure in name resolution?"
But I cannot understand why. Running, e.g. "dig foo.example.com" returns
instantly with the IP address,
Keith:
> If you are interested and I do not subsequently break your head can I
> ask some questions as to how to find snippets of your code that might
> do things related to those questions so I can fail to make sense of
> them and rob them to try and implement a/my thing?
I'm afraid that there
I should pay more attention to which e-mail address I am using to
instill confidence.
Bob
On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 20:31 +0100, Keith wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 13:07 -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > Bob via Postfix-users:
> > > Having put my foot in it by suggesting that
Bob via Postfix-users:
> Having put my foot in it by suggesting that Postfix might make calls to
> external functions requiring root access, in particular IPTables, what
> if Postfix had its own version of IPtables.
It was decided long ago that Postfix will be extensible with different
tools from
On 2024-07-25 11:15, Corey H via Postfix-users wrote:
So, relayhost = mail.example.net without '[]' will lookup MX records
for mail.example.net?
On 25.07.24 15:40, Corey H via Postfix-users wrote:
OK I got the idea.
when sending email to u...@foo.com, and relayhost = [mail.example.net],
this
On 24.07.24 14:40, Bob via Postfix-users wrote:
I get it might be a bit flakey from a security perspective and should
come with warnings but it is my box.
Yes, but when postfix was designed with security in mind, it may
intentionally not support things like this one.
As an aside the
On 2024-07-25 11:15, Corey H via Postfix-users wrote:
So, relayhost = mail.example.net without '[]' will lookup MX records
for mail.example.net?
Thanks.
OK I got the idea.
when sending email to u...@foo.com, and relayhost = [mail.example.net],
this postfix won't lookup MX records for
So, relayhost = mail.example.net without '[]' will lookup MX records for
mail.example.net?
Thanks.
On 2024-07-25 11:12, Serhii via Postfix-users wrote:
From postfix docs: "The form [hostname] turns off MX or SRV lookups."
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relayhost
On 7/25/24 09:09,
* Corey H via Postfix-users [25/07/2024 11:09] :
>
> relayhost = [mail.example.net]:587
> but what does this mean with '[]' and hostname in it?
>From the documentation[1]:
"The form [hostname] turns off MX or SRV lookups."
Emmanuel
1: https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relayhost
From postfix docs: "The form [hostname] turns off MX or SRV lookups."
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relayhost
On 7/25/24 09:09, Corey H via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi list,
I saw this configuration in my company's postfix.
relayhost = [mail.example.net]:587
Generally I would write it
Hi list,
I saw this configuration in my company's postfix.
relayhost = [mail.example.net]:587
Generally I would write it as:
relayhost = 1.2.3.4
but what does this mean with '[]' and hostname in it?
Thanks.
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
Apologies if my random ignorance has been a bit much.
Thanks for taking the time to look at the posibilities and also discuss
them with added words for me to look in to. The mention of Policy
Servers and Milters along with the information that is supplied to them
by Postfix causes me to come up
Great examples. Thanks for pointing out that.
- 원본 메일 -
보낸사람: Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
받는사람: Postfix users
날짜: 24.07.25 08:57 GMT +0900
제목: [pfx] Re: RFC logs_check
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> > what's the main difference between a policy server and a milter?
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
<87a5i6pesk@ra.horus-it.com>:
|* Steffen Nurpmeso:
|
|>>I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse to support
|>>something which introduces a significant security risk.
|>
|> Now you exaggerate a bit.
|
|Not really, the original
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> > what's the main difference between a policy server and a milter?
>
>
> Policy Server:
> - Coded quickly in scripting language
> - Lightweight, simple, and fast to setup
> - Is only provided limited header information by postfix for evaluating
No headers
what's the main difference between a policy server and a milter?
Policy Server:
- Coded quickly in scripting language
- Lightweight, simple, and fast to setup
- Is only provided limited header information by postfix for evaluating
Milter:
- More complicated to setup and code
- Has
* Steffen Nurpmeso:
> >I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse to support
> >something which introduces a significant security risk.
>
> Now you exaggerate a bit.
Not really, the original example of invoking "iptables" directly
requires root provileges. That could be mitigated by
what's the main difference between a policy server and a milter?
I searched and found this link:
https://serverfault.com/questions/1149051/what-difference-does-it-make-to-implement-a-feature-as-policy-service-vs-as-milt
but I am still not pretty sure.
Thanks.
- 원본 메일 -
Ralph Seichter, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote in
<87v80ujyjr@ra.horus-it.com>:
|* Bob via Postfix-users:
|
|> I get it might be a bit flakey from a security perspective and should
|> come with warnings but it is my box.
|
|I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse
* Bob via Postfix-users:
> I get it might be a bit flakey from a security perspective and should
> come with warnings but it is my box.
I think it is more than "a bit flakey". You ask Wietse to support
something which introduces a significant security risk. Plus, this
particular something is not
* Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users:
> Despite what you say about your unsuccessful attempts with fail2ban,
> it seems the best tool for the job. It's the whole idea of fail2ban
> anyway - if "SOMETHING" appears in the logfile "SOME" number of times
> (which can be 1), then stuff the IP address
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wtl814dp5zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Keith wrote in
|> :
|>|Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
...
|> The op wants to be able to reject the one emails, and to block IPs
|>
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> Keith wrote in
> :
> |Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
> |
> |Then again I might take heart from the suggestion that this has been
> |done before although the mention of blocklisting and coloured flags
> |suggests
Keith wrote in
:
|Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
|
|Then again I might take heart from the suggestion that this has been
|done before although the mention of blocklisting and coloured flags
|suggests others decided it was a bad idea.
|
|I get that cause
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>* Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
|>> Some systems are configured to "oversign" headers, essentially signing
|>> the non-existence.
|
|On 24.07.24 02:11, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
|>Shhh! We don't want to advertise that in
On 25/07/2024 00:19, Bob wrote:
Thanks... Toddles of to read about PostScreen
"Wietse expects that the zombie problem will get worse before things
improve, if ever."
Waves. Sorry if I am being ittitating.
Oh, don't worry, you are showings signs of learning behaviour, something
that seems all
On 25/07/2024 00:08, Bob via Postfix-users wrote:
[SNIP]
Your link has the glimmer of a plan but would I not be back to having
to periodically scan stdout, a file, to check for changes needimg
action?
The fail2ban daemon does that for you.
Once you implement postcreen and the spamhaus
Thanks... Toddles of to read about PostScreen
"Wietse expects that the zombie problem will get worse before things
improve, if ever."
Waves. Sorry if I am being ittitating.
Bob
On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 00:12 +1000, Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> This is exactly what postscreen - which
On 24/07/2024 23:58, Bob via Postfix-users wrote:
[SNIP]
The rest of my logs are stuffed with "user<>" and "unknown" or "does
not resolve to" so they can get in the sea as well.
This is exactly what postscreen - which is part of postfix - and
fail2ban were developed to handle.
I get a lot
Not sure when it happened but when I had to reinstall it on my Pi the
Pi was missing, ISTR, rsyslog so it was not the fault of Postfix. I
just had to put rsyslog back in and logging was back to normal.
Your link has the glimmer of a plan but would I not be back to having
to periodically scan
Yes. It was just an example. However many of these uninvited warts
don't publish such information and I have no doubt that they
periodically roll addresses. No I am not going to send them an e-mail
so they can pretend to go away.
The rest of my logs are stuffed with "user<>" and "unknown" or
Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users:
> I'm sure postfix can be configured to use normal log files, or is that
> something that has to be made available at build-time?
https://www.postfix.org/MAILLOG_README.html
Available with Postfix version 3.4 or later. This includes logging
to stdout while
I get it might be a bit flakey from a security perspective and should
come with warnings but it is my box.
As an aside the contents of my /etc/postfix directory are owned by root
so I assume Postfix needs root priveledges to access them.
That seems like its already halfway down that particular
On 24/07/2024 23:23, Allen Coates via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24/07/2024 13:11, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
I want "Kill on Sight".
Fastest way to me would be Postfix says it logged a connection from
fluffy.cuddly.port.raping.internet-measurement.com calls my script with
the IP
Bob via Postfix-users:
> As a further ramble headers_checks, a line in mine, looks like this
>
> /ional.co.uk/ REJECT No Spam Please.
>
> At the eame time that Postfix triggers on the match it must know the IP
> address that was associated with the trigger. Instead of the above...
>
>
On 24/07/2024 13:11, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
>> I want "Kill on Sight".
>>
>> Fastest way to me would be Postfix says it logged a connection from
>> fluffy.cuddly.port.raping.internet-measurement.com calls my script with
>> the IP address and they get stuffed up IPTables.
These
Oooops. Also applies to me :)
Bob
On Wed, 2024-07-24 at 14:51 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-
users wrote:
> This article is 9 years old and apparently some parts of it are
> obsolete...
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
On 24.07.24 13:26, Bob via Postfix-users wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
There are some words here,
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/179477/how-does-fail2ban-detect-the-time-of-an-intrusion-attempt-if-the-log-files-dont
This article is 9 years old and apparently some parts of it are
As a further ramble headers_checks, a line in mine, looks like this
/ional.co.uk/ REJECT No Spam Please.
At the eame time that Postfix triggers on the match it must know the IP
address that was associated with the trigger. Instead of the above...
/ional.co.uk/ REJECT No Spam Please. ACTION
Thanks for the reply.
There are some words here,
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/179477/how-does-fail2ban-detect-the-time-of-an-intrusion-attempt-if-the-log-files-dont
Which suggests that Fail2Ban is continuously scanning logfiles for
changes unless you install Gamin which is some
Dnia 24.07.2024 o godz. 00:14:51 Bob via Postfix-users pisze:
> I want "Kill on Sight".
>
> Fastest way to me would be Postfix says it logged a connection from
> fluffy.cuddly.port.raping.internet-measurement.com calls my script with
> the IP address and they get stuffed up IPTables.
Despite
On 24.07.24 20:24, wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
Because I am using the VM, and my VM provider doesn't have ubuntu 24.04
available.
maybe I should try to get a ubuntu 24.04 from another provider and install
the postfix 3.9 package then.
Ubuntu can be easily upgraded, you will even have
Because I am using the VM, and my VM provider doesn't have ubuntu 24.04 available.
maybe I should try to get a ubuntu 24.04 from another provider and install the postfix 3.9 package then.
Thanks for all help.
- 원본 메일 -
보낸사람: Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
받는사람:
* Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
Some systems are configured to "oversign" headers, essentially signing
the non-existence.
On 24.07.24 02:11, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
Shhh! We don't want to advertise that in this scenario, do we? ;-)
Still, you are correct to point out that the
Ill be honest. I wasn't as successful as I let on because I noticed
that I hadn't include mysql in the build and was up for hours trying
to get the mysqlclient and header files. Ended up deleting that VM,
started over using the bookworm releases instead.
I will give building another go later
* Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
> Some systems are configured to "oversign" headers, essentially signing
> the non-existence.
Shhh! We don't want to advertise that in this scenario, do we? ;-)
Still, you are correct to point out that the DKIM spec allows for these
kinds of shenanigans.
> Any
* Bob via Postfix-users:
> I realise stuff like failtoban is available but when I look at it the
> wrong way, or in any way, it falls over and it only looks at logfiles
> every so often [...]
I found fail2ban not to my taste, so like you I searched for possible
alternatives. I finally came to
Bob via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|I know of such things but I am not sure that they are the solution to
|my problem in as much as they are lists of known spammers.
|
|Other than the Hotmail SEO/APP Cretins I have, fingers crossed, only
|suffered from two persistent idiots that are rejected
I know of such things but I am not sure that they are the solution to
my problem in as much as they are lists of known spammers.
Other than the Hotmail SEO/APP Cretins I have, fingers crossed, only
suffered from two persistent idiots that are rejected in
headers_check.
Not that any of them pay
Is there a docker for postifx 3.9? I just want to try some new features of version 3.9.
Thank you.
- 원본 메일 -
보낸사람: Cody Millard via Postfix-users
받는사람: postfix-users@postfix.org
날짜: 24.07.24 06:38 GMT +0900
제목: [pfx] Re: install postfix 3.9 on ubuntu 20.04
Ill be
Yo!
Thanks for the suggestion and the links.
Unfotunately as per,
https://fail2ban.readthedocs.io/en/latest/filters.html
and my previous moan.
Fail2Ban is retro-active and tries to deal with all of the
everything...
https://fail2ban.readthedocs.io/en/latest/filters.html#developing-filters
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 23:06, r.barclay--- via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You could use a custom Fail2Ban regular expression to ban IP addresses
> that cause Postfix log entries containing certain domain names.
>
> See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail2ban
>
Hi,
You could use a custom Fail2Ban regular expression to ban IP addresses that
cause Postfix log entries containing certain domain names.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail2ban
https://fail2ban.readthedocs.io/en/latest/filters.html
Yours,
Reg
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2024 um 23:14
Ill be honest. I wasn't as successful as I let on because I noticed that
I hadn't include mysql in the build and was up for hours trying to get
the mysqlclient and header files. Ended up deleting that VM, started
over using the bookworm releases instead.
I will give building another go later
Hi,
Apologies if this a silly suggestion. I have hunted high and low for a
thing that would be simple for someone who is simple. I get the
impression from the usual sources such as stackexchange that there is
no easy or rather simple answer.
Whilst I have spotted 'spawn' as a possibility of
On 2024-07-22 at 18:58:41 UTC-0400 (Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:58:41 +0200)
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Adding *new* headers can't break existing DKIM signatures, because
these
headers cannot have been signed before. New in this case means header
names (not values)
On 7/22/2024 5:32 PM, wesley via Postfix-users wrote:
Rather than compiling from the source, do you know if there is another better
way to install postfix 3.9 on ubuntu 20.04 system?
I google it and found nothing useful thought.
On 22.07.24 18:32, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
It
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> On Jul 22, 2024, at 5:00?PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> >>> You will need SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with 'p=reject'. If this is
> >>> an interactive list, you will need to replace list member's From:
> >>>
It appears that Ubuntu Oracular Oriole 24.10 has a Postfix 3.9 package
but the release isn't until October 10, 2024.
https://packages.ubuntu.com/oracular/postfix
I just compiled Postfix 3.9 on debian, as an inexperienced user, it was
kinda difficult. I managed to get after a day of trail
On Jul 22, 2024, at 5:00 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
>
> Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
>>> You will need SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with 'p=reject'. If this is
>>> an interactive list, you will need to replace list member's From:
>>> headers with your mailing list address to
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> > You will need SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with 'p=reject'. If this is
> > an interactive list, you will need to replace list member's From:
> > headers with your mailing list address to satisfy DMARC.
>
> I believe I have SPF, DKIM and DMARC setup with p=reject.
>
* Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> Will DMARC be broken if I only add the following headers to mailing
> list messages? [...]
Adding *new* headers can't break existing DKIM signatures, because these
headers cannot have been signed before. New in this case means header
names (not values) which
On Jul 22, 2024, at 4:21 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
>
> Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
>> Hello all!
>>
>> I recently added mlmmj as a mailing list manager to my postfix server.
>>
>> My concern is that I don't overwhelm the big boys (yahoo, google,
>> iCloud) and have them
Hello community,
Rather than compiling from the source, do you know if there is another better way to install postfix 3.9 on ubuntu 20.04 system?
I google it and found nothing useful thought.
Thanks.
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> Hello all!
>
> I recently added mlmmj as a mailing list manager to my postfix server.
>
> My concern is that I don't overwhelm the big boys (yahoo, google,
> iCloud) and have them rate limit me because I am sending to too
> many addresses to quickly.
>
> Here
Hello all!
I recently added mlmmj as a mailing list manager to my postfix server.
My concern is that I don’t overwhelm the big boys (yahoo, google, iCloud) and
have them rate limit me because I am sending to too many addresses to quickly.
Here are my transport settings for mlmmj.
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> Thank you! changing from 'error' to 'smtp' did indeed do the trick.
>
> Follow up, I clearly have a config ported over time, I see that
> `smtpd_relay_restrictions` is perhaps what I now want to use instead
> of `smtpd_recipient_restrictions`
>
> It appears to be
On 2024-07-22 at 12:16:26 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:16:26 -0500)
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:45 AM Bill Cole via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>> Yes. Anything in master.cf after a "-o" is just a service-specific exception
>> to the
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
> > each
> > line of the man
Thank you! changing from 'error' to 'smtp' did indeed do the trick.
Follow up, I clearly have a config ported over time, I see that
`smtpd_relay_restrictions` is perhaps what I now want to use instead
of `smtpd_recipient_restrictions`
It appears to be working with the above fix as well as:
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> I'm in the process of rebuilding a mail relay server from Centos 7 (postfix
> 2.10.x) -> Ubuntu 22 (Postfix 3.6.x).
>
> This is a mail relay server that will relay mail for our customers if their
> IP is whitelisted in /etc/postfix/access. We have no local users
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 each
> line of the man page):
>
> warning: cannot select font 'C' [usr/share/man/man5/postconf.5.gz:1]
I
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:03 AM Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
> If "Recipient address rejected" is followed by "user unknown in xxx
> table" then you inadvertanly added their domain to that table.
>
It is not. From the peer debug output:
Jul 22 11:21:29 envelope
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:45 AM Bill Cole via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Yes. Anything in master.cf after a "-o" is just a service-specific exception
> to the configuration set in main.cf. So, you could add it to the smtpd line
> in master.cf or to main.cf.
ack. probably not the fix i want here
101 - 200 of 97244 matches
Mail list logo
