Hi guys,
the documentation says:
"Reject the request when the HELO or EHLO hostname has no DNS A or MX
record"
I'm trying to understand the "or" between the "A" and "MX" words - will
this test reject the transport when any of those records are missing, or
when the propagated HELO/EHLO
On 7/1/20 9:02 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 1 Jul 2020, at 12:29, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Fix the DNS? All reverse DNS should have an A record pointed back in the DNS
zone. This would be a real mess
It is quite common for one name to have multiple A (and/or ) records and for more than one
On 7/1/20 12:40 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
On 6/30/20 10:34 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
On 6/30/20 9:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hi, I hope this letter finds you well,
I have Postfix behind NAT, and added one failover IP to the main
On 7/1/20 1:20 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:40, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hi, I hope this letter finds you well,
I have Postfix behind NAT, and added one failover IP to the main router.
I wanted to "get by cheaply" by just doing something like
iptbales -t nat -I P
On 6/30/20 10:34 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
On 6/30/20 9:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hi, I hope this letter finds you well,
I have Postfix behind NAT, and added one failover IP to the main router.
I wanted to "get by cheaply" by just doing
On 6/30/20 9:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hi, I hope this letter finds you well,
I have Postfix behind NAT, and added one failover IP to the main router.
I wanted to "get by cheaply" by just doing something like
iptbales -t nat -I POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport
Hi, I hope this letter finds you well,
I have Postfix behind NAT, and added one failover IP to the main router.
I wanted to "get by cheaply" by just doing something like
iptbales -t nat -I POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 25 -j DNAT --to
on the firewall machine.
So, all well, the only problem is
Le me contribute to the list.
The mail transport between _two servers_ is always on port 25.
587 is so called submission, it's for communication between client <-> server
best,
Istvan
On 5/29/20 2:16 PM, Matteo Cazzador wrote:
Hi, excuse a question, during the comunication between 2 mail
On 2017-02-12 19:06, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code.
Sorry for the late reply, but here's a Thanks from me too, to you and
all the contributors.
Best,
Istvan
On 2017-02-07 10:12, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi Istvan,
Noel Jones wrote:
> Remember that header_checks won't match encoded subjects
We need to see the raw Subject header from the email that failed to
match. It was probably encoded.
$ scan -forma '%{subject}' .
On 2017-02-06 23:19, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/6/2017 3:23 PM, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hi All, and Happy New Year with a little delay :)
Comming to spam, header checks are one tool that I use frequently to
prevent it.
So, amongst all, I have this:
if !/^Subject: (.*)[Aa]liexpress/
/^Subject
On 2017-02-06 22:56, Dominic Raferd wrote:
On 6 February 2017 at 21:23, Istvan Prosinger <ist...@prosinger.net>
wrote:
Hi All, and Happy New Year with a little delay :)
Comming to spam, header checks are one tool that I use frequently to
prevent it.
So, amongst all,
Hi All, and Happy New Year with a little delay :)
Comming to spam, header checks are one tool that I use frequently to
prevent it.
So, amongst all, I have this:
if !/^Subject: (.*)[Aa]liexpress/
/^Subject:(.*)% [Oo][Ff][Ff]/ REJECT Go away spammer
endif
And this worked fine until _today_,
On 2016-12-28 09:36, Alice Wonder wrote:
On 12/28/2016 12:28 AM, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/28/2016 08:32 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
reverse DNS is properly set up.
Postfix only listens on the local host.
Linux firewall drops anything
On 18.3.2016 15:42, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:05:51AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 3/18/2016 6:20 AM, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I need to insert something like
X-MY-ID-some-unique-ID
into each email's header for local tracking purposes.
Why a separate
Thanks Ben. It was a generic example
On 18.3.2016 21:14, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On Mar 18, 2016, at 07.20, Istvan Prosinger <ist...@prosinger.net> wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I need to insert something like
X-MY-ID-some-unique-ID
into each email's header for local tracking pu
Hello Everyone!
I need to insert something like
X-MY-ID-some-unique-ID
into each email's header for local tracking purposes.
The unique ID doesn't have to be some complicated hash, it can be
something like the + or ... which would
be mostly unique.
Any ideas if such a thing could be done
On 19.3.2016 15:53, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
I've tried what you ask, this is what I got:
[root@email ~]# postmap -h -q - pcre:/etc/postfix/stamp.pcre < testheader
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by em
On 19.3.2016 16:02, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
[root@email ~]# postmap -h -q - pcre:/etc/postfix/stamp.pcre < testheader
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by email-test.server.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3qRyhf4pqCzKmYs
for <ist...
On 19.3.2016 15:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
On 19.3.2016 1:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Why a separate header, why not just:
enable_long_queue_ids = yes
and use the queue ID that's already in your top Received: header?
I
On 19.3.2016 1:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Why a separate header, why not just:
enable_long_queue_ids = yes
and use the queue ID that's already in your top Received: header?
I would use a header_checks PREPEND action that prepends a header
with the long queue ID from
On 18.3.2016 17:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
/dev/rob0:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:05:51AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 3/18/2016 6:20 AM, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hello Everyone!
I need to insert something like
X-MY-ID-some-unique-ID
into each email's header for local tracking purposes.
Why
Prosinger wrote:
On 13.11.2015 22:53, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 11/13/15 14:17, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
I got two options that I know of. Signifficantly shortening the
queue
lifetime, or (not) losing the queue from the RAM disk.
Just trying to measure which is worse (or to hear something new
Hi,
I'm trying to install the signed STARTSSL certificates to Postfix, but
I'm getting this entry whatever I do:
Nov 17 18:41:39 knox postfix/smtp[32153]: Untrusted TLS connection
established to gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[74.125.133.26]:25: TLSv1.2
with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
On 13.11.2015 22:53, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 11/13/15 14:17, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
I got two options that I know of. Signifficantly shortening the queue
lifetime, or (not) losing the queue from the RAM disk.
Just trying to measure which is worse (or to hear something new for me)
If you
Hello,
I'll have a project to send 300-400k emails a day from a new IP address
with one server. This can build up a signifficant mail queue on the
server.
We have several similar solutions already working but this time the idea
is to have me do this on a VPS (no SSD drives involved),
I got two options that I know of. Signifficantly shortening the queue
lifetime, or (not) losing the queue from the RAM disk.
Just trying to measure which is worse (or to hear something new for me)
On 13.11.2015 16:17, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 11/13/15 04:44, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hello
Ok. As I mentioned, SSD is not an option on this project. Only RAM or
Raid 10 (shared with other VPSes)
On 13.11.2015 20:56, Ken Simpson wrote:
We deliver tens of millions per server per day using SSD spools...
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:18 AM Istvan Prosinger <ist...@prosinger.net
<mail
On 2015-11-13 12:53, Leonardo Rodrigues wrote:
Em 13/11/15 08:09, Patrick Ben Koetter escreveu:
* Istvan Prosinger <ist...@prosinger.net>:
Hello,
I'll have a project to send 300-400k emails a day from a new IP
address with one server. This can build up a signifficant mail queue
on the
On 2015-08-06 13:50, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Got it.
I have made a small perl script as a service that would only return
reject as a policy (that sould have rendered most of the mailing
impossibble), and postfix was still mailing happily. Since I have
recompiled Postfix from the source
Got it.
I have made a small perl script as a service that would only return
reject as a policy (that sould have rendered most of the mailing
impossibble), and postfix was still mailing happily. Since I have
recompiled Postfix from the source, it was out of the question the the
process was
On 2015-08-03 16:16, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 09:48:35AM -0400, Postfix User wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:52:33 +0200, Istvan Prosinger stated:
Yeah when I took the server for audit, Postfix was dead and couldn't
start -the config file was (and stil is) in mess
, thinking that it might
be damaged, but no effect...
On 2015-08-02 23:14, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 10:53:35PM +0200, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:10031
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet
= high
smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = SSLv3, TLSv1
smtpd_use_tls = yes
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
On 7/31/2015 4:37 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +0200, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
On 2015-07-30 17:23
Istvan Prosinger:
On 2015-07-30 17:23, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hello everyone,
I have this im main.cf (I'ts actually an attempt to implement
cluebringer/policyd)
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:10031
On 2015-07-30 17:23, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hello everyone,
I have this im main.cf (I'ts actually an attempt to implement
cluebringer/policyd)
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:10031,
permit_mynetworks
Hello everyone,
I have this im main.cf (I'ts actually an attempt to implement
cluebringer/policyd)
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:10031,
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
, but to prevent spam/bulk/etc mailing from the sender domains
that I'm hosting
On 2015-07-23 12:55, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hi everyone,
Can anyone pinpoint me to a simple way to limit the outgoing number of
emails in a time frame per domain, without involving policyd
Hi everyone,
Can anyone pinpoint me to a simple way to limit the outgoing number of
emails in a time frame per domain, without involving policyd and mysql,
or any other 3rd party script?
I'm looking for a simple restriction with a hash table or so.
Best Regards,
Istvan
On 2015-07-03 22:14, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015, Istvan Prosinger ist...@prosinger.net
wrote:
What I can tell at this moment, is that I tried all that.
Although I usually delete the mail queue and then try to send one
mail with mailx, same thing happens.
Nevertheless, it's
Ok, let's forget this since it's definitely an opendkim problem, not
postfix.
I connected to it as a unix socket, and it works that way.
Still a mistery why TCP won't work, but ok.
Hi all,
I think I just need a four-eye method here, because I simply can't see
what am I doing wrong.
I've tried to install OpenDKIM milter with Postfix - something that is
usually a ruoutine work but I keep getting the same mesage all the time
when I try to send a test mail:
On 2015-07-03 16:00, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Istvan Prosinger skrev den 2015-07-03 14:36:
postfix/cleanup[20494]: 06E7312113A: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE
from localhost[127.0.0.1]: 4.7.1 Service unavailable - try again
later; from=r...@tesdns.com to=istvan.prosin...@gmail.com
means
On 2015-07-03 16:00, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Istvan Prosinger skrev den 2015-07-03 14:36:
postfix/cleanup[20494]: 06E7312113A: milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE
from localhost[127.0.0.1]: 4.7.1 Service unavailable - try again
later; from=r...@tesdns.com to=istvan.prosin...@gmail.com
means
Pedersen wrote:
Istvan Prosinger skrev den 2015-07-03 18:11:
My initial thought was that it's about Postfix.
can happen if opendkim is started to late ?
in that case try to solve that so opendkim is started before postfix
for the mails in mailq, try
postsuper -r ALL postfix reload
did
Hi Wietse,
One benefit of using fail2ban (for me) is a definitely cleaner mail log
for these cases.
Regards,
Istvan
On 12.3.2015 2:30, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Fox:
I haven't implemented postscreen yet, but plan to. So this question is for
the postscreen experts here.
As I
Thanks.
I was thinking in general.
On 01/29/2015 05:34 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/29/2015 10:24 AM, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Hello,
As in the subject.
Something like, maximal_queue_lifetime = 0.5d
This was the first parameter that came to my mind, for example
(don't look for sense). I
Hello,
As in the subject.
Something like, maximal_queue_lifetime = 0.5d
This was the first parameter that came to my mind, for example (don't
look for sense). I was wondering if Postfix would accept vaules like
this.
Regards,
Istvan
Oh nice! Will take a look asap
On 26.1.2015 22:26, Nicolas HAHN wrote:
Hello there,*
*I've released *version 0.9.18 of the ELSE *as a tar.gz archive on
Sourceforge:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/x-itools/files/X-Itools%20releases/E-mail%20Log%20Search%20Engine/
Happy New Year all!
On 31.12.2014 11:45, John wrote:
Here is wishing you all a very happy and prosperous new year.
Hello all,
I'm trying to send a test mail to my postscreened server, and postscreen
should naturally rejct it for the first time. My problem is that it
seems to be rejecting the mail forever even if it's comming from the
same IP adress
Dec 29 17:22:09 vs3163 postfix/postscreen[10262]:
Uf, indeed!! I almost looked letter-by-letter into the config and
didn't notice that I removed the part for static IPs.
Four eyes see more as my menthor would say back in the old days
Thanks!
On 2014-12-29 17:37, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 29.12.2014 um 17:25 schrieb Istvan Prosinger:
I'm
Hello,
Is it possibble to make Postfix relay to some specific domain using a
specific relay, and relay all the other domains by default rules (put
the mail to an inbox if local or relay outbound by the given
restrictions etc)?
I guess it'd involve a transport_maps pointer in the main.cf to
On Dec 21, 2014 12:55 PM, Istvan Prosinger ist...@prosinger.net
mailto:ist...@prosinger.net wrote:
Hello,
Is it possibble to make Postfix relay to some specific domain using
a specific relay, and relay all the other domains by default rules
(put the mail to an inbox if local or relay
On 21.12.2014 18:21, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 08:57:52AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Istvan Prosinger:
Hello,
Is it possibble to make Postfix relay to some specific domain using a
specific relay, and relay all the other domains by default rules (put
the mail
ah got it (always late). Maximal and bounce queue liftemes.
On 2014-12-20 09:16, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
Dear friends,
Sometimes I have similar issues in the que:
(connect to hotel-patrizietta.ch[185.53.177.20]:25: Connection
timed out)
i
test testovich
57 matches
Mail list logo
