Release date of Postfix 3.0?
Hello! Is there a set release date for Postfix 3.0, or is it released when its "done"? - Patrik signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: delaying mail before passing to next hop
> On Nov 13, 2014, at 13.00, Robert Schetterer wrote: > > Am 13.11.2014 um 18:14 schrieb b...@bitrate.net: >> hi- >> >> short version: >> i have an mx which, after doing the initial handling [postscreen, etc] of >> messages arriving from the internet, relays mail to another computer for >> content filtering [amavis/spamassassin]: >> >> relay_transport = lmtp-filter:[mfa.example.com]:lmtp-filter-external >> >> after a message has been accepted, i'd like to delay its relay to the >> content filter for five minutes. can postfix do this? >> >> longer version: >> i've noticed a recent trend in which a message arrives, passes >> postscreen/various smtpd_*_restrictions, and is passed to the content >> filter, which passes it as clean, having not matched many rules [in >> particular, network tests like uri dnsbls, razor/pyzor, etc]. >> >> minutes later, the same message arrives [timestamps, message ids, etc >> differ], in that time has made its way into the results of various network >> tests, and is then marked is spam. >> >> e.g. my consideration for this approach. i'd also be interested in general >> thoughts on this problem, and other possibilities. i'm not particularly >> fond of artificial delays, and the various implications [e.g. queue sizes, >> user expectations, etc], but in the context of a controlled environment >> [e.g. after postfix has accepted the message, i'm willing to at least >> entertain the possibility. >> >> thanks-ben >> > > interesting, didnt notice such yet > > you might hold mail, and release it by cron etc thanks - cron came to mind initially for me too. i wondered though if postfix might offer a mechanism of its own.
Re: delaying mail before passing to next hop
On Nov 13, 2014, at 15.02, Noel Jones wrote: > > On 11/13/2014 11:14 AM, b...@bitrate.net wrote: >> hi- >> >> short version: >> i have an mx which, after doing the initial handling [postscreen, etc] of >> messages arriving from the internet, relays mail to another computer for >> content filtering [amavis/spamassassin]: >> >> relay_transport = lmtp-filter:[mfa.example.com]:lmtp-filter-external >> >> after a message has been accepted, i'd like to delay its relay to the >> content filter for five minutes. can postfix do this? >> >> longer version: >> i've noticed a recent trend in which a message arrives, passes >> postscreen/various smtpd_*_restrictions, and is passed to the content >> filter, which passes it as clean, having not matched many rules [in >> particular, network tests like uri dnsbls, razor/pyzor, etc]. >> >> minutes later, the same message arrives [timestamps, message ids, etc >> differ], in that time has made its way into the results of various network >> tests, and is then marked is spam. >> >> e.g. my consideration for this approach. i'd also be interested in general >> thoughts on this problem, and other possibilities. i'm not particularly >> fond of artificial delays, and the various implications [e.g. queue sizes, >> user expectations, etc], but in the context of a controlled environment >> [e.g. after postfix has accepted the message, i'm willing to at least >> entertain the possibility. >> >> thanks-ben >> > > This is exactly why greylisting was invented. Have you tried that? i don't know about "exactly", but yes, i did briefly consider that greylisting would have a somewhat similar effect. it would introduce a delay, but at the cost of all of the other side effects of greylisting, which would likely cause more problems than it would solve, imho. that's why i wanted to do it after the message was accepted, where the onus can be fully on me regarding its fate. -ben
Re: delaying mail before passing to next hop
On Nov 13, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > This is exactly why greylisting was invented. Have you tried that? Greylisting has a host of problems of its own though. Even with a dedicated mail admin who is really trying to keep up on all the mail coming in, you *will* lose mail with greylisting. -- Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.
Re: white list
Ruben Safir: > WHat are some suggsted methods of whitelisting with postfix. > > I am throwing in the flag and want to prevent email to me without my > specific permision, and to bounce the rest. This does exactly what you ask, but you probably need more. /etc/postfix/main.cf: smtp_sender_restrictions = check_sender_whitelist hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access reject /etc/postfix/sender_whitelist: # Allow notifications of undeliverable mail. # http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_null_access_lookup_key. <> permit # Whitelisted users us...@example.com permit us...@example.org permit (use "postmap /etc/postfix/sender_whitelist" after changing the whitelist). What you probably need is a way to automatically whitelist an address after you send mail to it; such a feature is known as "penpals" and is built into, for example, amavisd-new. Penpals support is not built into Postfix. It may be done with a script (Perl, Python) that tails the maillog file and that adds a new recipient to the sender whitelist. Wietse
Re: PCRE question
Thanks. I guess I'll have to dig into the SA rules for that then. From: Viktor Dukhovni To: postfix-users@postfix.org Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:17 AM Subject: Re: PCRE question On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:08:54AM -0800, J. wrote: > PCRE rule: > /*[\s\n\r]*(.*) (.*)@test.com/ REJECT testing > Why does this text match the pcre? As I read it, there must be > a line break after the underscores to match, Actually, no, because the [\s\n\r]* matches any number of white-space chacters, including ZERO. Perhaps you meant: (\s*\r\n)+ but even then body content is scanned one line at a time, and you cannot make use of patterns that (try to) match multiple lines. > Does . match linebreaks?: Yes, by default, in Postfix header checks, but you're testing body content I think. -- Viktor.
Re: Preventing sendmail -f option
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:01:56AM +0200, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote: > Is there a way to prevent sendmail -f option from being used to change the > envelope sender address? However pickup(8) records the user's uid in the Received header. Not allowing local submission from remote senders would break forwarding via procmail, and various other important use cases. The feature you're looking for would have to be in postdrop(1) not sendmail(1), but if I recall correctly it does not exist. -- Viktor.
white list
WHat are some suggsted methods of whitelisting with postfix. I am throwing in the flag and want to prevent email to me without my specific permision, and to bounce the rest. Ruben -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Preventing sendmail -f option
Is there a way to prevent sendmail -f option from being used to change the envelope sender address? Thanks -- Mehmet
Re: delaying mail before passing to next hop
On 11/13/2014 11:14 AM, b...@bitrate.net wrote: > hi- > > short version: > i have an mx which, after doing the initial handling [postscreen, etc] of > messages arriving from the internet, relays mail to another computer for > content filtering [amavis/spamassassin]: > > relay_transport = lmtp-filter:[mfa.example.com]:lmtp-filter-external > > after a message has been accepted, i'd like to delay its relay to the content > filter for five minutes. can postfix do this? > > longer version: > i've noticed a recent trend in which a message arrives, passes > postscreen/various smtpd_*_restrictions, and is passed to the content filter, > which passes it as clean, having not matched many rules [in particular, > network tests like uri dnsbls, razor/pyzor, etc]. > > minutes later, the same message arrives [timestamps, message ids, etc > differ], in that time has made its way into the results of various network > tests, and is then marked is spam. > > e.g. my consideration for this approach. i'd also be interested in general > thoughts on this problem, and other possibilities. i'm not particularly fond > of artificial delays, and the various implications [e.g. queue sizes, user > expectations, etc], but in the context of a controlled environment [e.g. > after postfix has accepted the message, i'm willing to at least entertain the > possibility. > > thanks-ben > This is exactly why greylisting was invented. Have you tried that? -- Noel Jones
Re: PCRE question
Le 13/11/2014 19:08, J. a écrit : > Why does this text match the pcre? As I read it, there must be a line > break after the underscores to match, but it's matching. Does . match > linebreaks?: > > Text: > "For Testing Only: __ xxx > > From: My Name > To: any one " > > PCRE rule: > /*[\s\n\r]*(.*) (.*)@test.com/ REJECT testing > [\s\n\r]* means 0 or more occurence of \s \n or \r, Your regexp will match anything (including empty string) followed by @test.com, so here the From: My Name But I think multiline regexp are more tricky than that, somebody with more knowledge than me might infirm or confirm this.
Re: PCRE question
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:08:54AM -0800, J. wrote: > PCRE rule: > /*[\s\n\r]*(.*) (.*)@test.com/ REJECT testing > Why does this text match the pcre? As I read it, there must be > a line break after the underscores to match, Actually, no, because the [\s\n\r]* matches any number of white-space chacters, including ZERO. Perhaps you meant: (\s*\r\n)+ but even then body content is scanned one line at a time, and you cannot make use of patterns that (try to) match multiple lines. > Does . match linebreaks?: Yes, by default, in Postfix header checks, but you're testing body content I think. -- Viktor.
PCRE question
Why does this text match the pcre? As I read it, there must be a line break after the underscores to match, but it's matching. Does . match linebreaks?: Text: "For Testing Only: __ xxx From: My Name To: any one " PCRE rule: /*[\s\n\r]*(.*) (.*)@test.com/ REJECT testing
Re: delaying mail before passing to next hop
Am 13.11.2014 um 18:14 schrieb b...@bitrate.net: > hi- > > short version: > i have an mx which, after doing the initial handling [postscreen, etc] of > messages arriving from the internet, relays mail to another computer for > content filtering [amavis/spamassassin]: > > relay_transport = lmtp-filter:[mfa.example.com]:lmtp-filter-external > > after a message has been accepted, i'd like to delay its relay to the content > filter for five minutes. can postfix do this? > > longer version: > i've noticed a recent trend in which a message arrives, passes > postscreen/various smtpd_*_restrictions, and is passed to the content filter, > which passes it as clean, having not matched many rules [in particular, > network tests like uri dnsbls, razor/pyzor, etc]. > > minutes later, the same message arrives [timestamps, message ids, etc > differ], in that time has made its way into the results of various network > tests, and is then marked is spam. > > e.g. my consideration for this approach. i'd also be interested in general > thoughts on this problem, and other possibilities. i'm not particularly fond > of artificial delays, and the various implications [e.g. queue sizes, user > expectations, etc], but in the context of a controlled environment [e.g. > after postfix has accepted the message, i'm willing to at least entertain the > possibility. > > thanks-ben > interesting, didnt notice such yet you might hold mail, and release it by cron etc Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer -- [*] sys4 AG http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263 Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
delaying mail before passing to next hop
hi- short version: i have an mx which, after doing the initial handling [postscreen, etc] of messages arriving from the internet, relays mail to another computer for content filtering [amavis/spamassassin]: relay_transport = lmtp-filter:[mfa.example.com]:lmtp-filter-external after a message has been accepted, i'd like to delay its relay to the content filter for five minutes. can postfix do this? longer version: i've noticed a recent trend in which a message arrives, passes postscreen/various smtpd_*_restrictions, and is passed to the content filter, which passes it as clean, having not matched many rules [in particular, network tests like uri dnsbls, razor/pyzor, etc]. minutes later, the same message arrives [timestamps, message ids, etc differ], in that time has made its way into the results of various network tests, and is then marked is spam. e.g. my consideration for this approach. i'd also be interested in general thoughts on this problem, and other possibilities. i'm not particularly fond of artificial delays, and the various implications [e.g. queue sizes, user expectations, etc], but in the context of a controlled environment [e.g. after postfix has accepted the message, i'm willing to at least entertain the possibility. thanks-ben
