[pfx] How to spot a competent developer
If you ever want to get an idea of how competent a developer is then I suggest looking no further at the quality of their documentation. My experience is that this is the best way to gauge how disciplined or lazy they are. :) May the good lord bless you all and may we all pray for Trump in 2024!! ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Documentation and website improvements
Future change logs need to be better worded. Change logs announce major changes for minor releases which is contrary to the explanation of the version numbering. The latest change log states "The stable Postfix release is called postfix-3.8.x where 3=major release number, 8=minor release number, x=patchlevel." But then later it states "Major changes with Postfix 3.8.1" Postfix 3.8 is a minor release from Postfix 3.7, so the change log shouldn't be announcing 'major changes'. http://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/official/postfix-3.8.3.RELEASE_NOTES Also, Postfix's download webpage mirrors state "Stable releases do not change except for bugfixes and for portability fixes." http://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html 'Security fixes' is missing from that statement, so I suggest changing the statement to "Stable releases don't change except for security fixes, bug fixes, and for portability fixes.". ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
I feel there are a lot of fanboys here who are in denial about my finding and are sticking their head in the sand about it in the face of what my Postfix is doing, so there is no more point in me talking about it. I will use the work around of switching off off IPv6. And hopefully Wietse will fix this problem in Postfix. K > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 6:12 am > From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: [pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:57:57AM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > > > Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces > > parameter is described in the documentation as making Postfix use only > > the interfaces listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores > > the parameter by using network interfaces that are not listed. > > [ The hubris is grating. If you plan to stick around on the list, it > would be best to start cutting back... ] > > https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces > > When inet_interfaces specifies just one IPv4 and/or IPv6 address > that is not a loopback address, the Postfix SMTP client will use > this address as the IP source address for outbound mail. Support > for IPv6 is available in Postfix version 2.2 and later. > > Note the "and/or", in particular there can be one of each, and each > affects only connections made via the associated protocol. Connections > made via the either protocol are of course not affected by the choice of > primary address for the other. This could be made a bit more explicit, > but Postfix is behaving as intended. > > Not everything you find unintuitive is necessarily a software or even a > documentation bug. Though requests (rather than demands) for > documentation clarification may, when justified, elicit changes in > the text, not just clarifying on-list commentary. > > > There is nothing mentioned in the Postfix documentation under the > > inet_interfaces parameter section that says the inet_interfaces > > parameter is for IPv4 only and that it will not have an effect on IPv6 > > interfaces. That claim is your fairy tale. > > It isn't for IPv4 only, it is for either or both protocols. The > overloading of inet_interfaces as a default source of "smtp_bind_adress" > and/or "smtpd_bind_address6" is a convenience that applies in limited > circumstances (exactly one "public" IP address for the associated address > family). To be sure to set a bind address use the associated dedicated > parameters. > > > Postfix needs to be patched so that the value of the inet_interfaces > > parameter is obeyed regardless of whether or not IPv6 (or other IP > > versions?) is enabled. > > It is obeyed as intended, on a per-address-family basis. If you want > just one address family, then you need to explicitly disable the other. > > Listing only IPv4 or only IPv6 addresses in inet_interfaces leaves the > other protocol family unconstrained. This is a feature, not a bug. > > > Disabling IPv6 probably isn't an acceptable workaround anyway. > > But that's exactly what you naîvely expected inet_interfaces to do, > so clearly it must be acceptable in your use case. > > > What happens if both an IPv4 and IPv6 IP address is listed? Postfix > > may still use other network interfaces not listed (IP addresses). > > If IPv6 is disabled, then IPv6 elements of inet_interfaces don't apply. > I don't recall whether they are then ignored, or a configuration error > is reported. > > > Changing the parameter name wouldn't be a bad idea either seeing > > parameter values are actually IP addresses and not interface names, as > > the parameter name suggests. > > That'd be a invalidation of long-standing practice for little gain. > In many cases there's just one address per interface and address > selection on a multi-homed host amounts to interface selection. > > -- > Viktor. > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
I've been posting on this mailer for the past 2 days and I have posted my configuration file as we as my mail log which demonstrates a problem with Postix where it is using network interfaces it shouldn't be using, as per the documentation. This is the first time I have seen you here, so, perhaps you should STFU before telling me to crawl before run and RTFM. Also, stop thinking Postfix is flawless. You are living in a fantasy land. Lots of pilots thought their autopilot software was flawless, too, only to end up being killed by it. K > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 5:51 am > From: "Antonio Leding" > To: "Kolusion K" > Cc: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > Subject: Re: [pfx] Contradicting Postfix documentation > > This looks a network and config issue rather than any defect in PF be > that with the code or the docs... > > I would highly recommend you crawl before you try running so with that > in mind, scale back your config to just use v4 and get that working. > Also, if you really want help on this mailer, post both your main and > master config files so the community understands exactly what your > system is cfg’d to do. Otherwise, it is doubtful folks will wanna > spend the time especially when your position is that you don’t need to > put in the same effort we all have done - i.e. seeing value in RTFM. > > I can truly say that in the 13+ years I’ve been using PF, all of the > config and operational issues I’ve had were covered in the docs… > > - - - > > On 2 May 2023, at 20:28, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > > > Disabling IPv6 probably isn't an acceptable workaround anyway. What > > happens if both an IPv4 and IPv6 IP address is listed? Postfix may > > still use other network interfaces not listed (IP addresses). > > > > Changing the parameter name wouldn't be a bad idea either seeing > > parameter values are actually IP addresses and not interface names, as > > the parameter name suggests. > > > > K > > > > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 5:11 am > >> From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > >> To: postfix-users@postfix.org > >> Subject: [pfx] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix > >> documentation > >> > >> Postfix needs to be patched so that the value of the inet_interfaces > >> parameter is obeyed regardless of whether or not IPv6 (or other IP > >> versions?) is enabled. > >> > >> K > >> > >> > >> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 4:57 am > >>> From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > >>> To: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > >>> Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > >>> > >>> Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces > >>> parameter is described in the documentation as making Postfix use > >>> only the interfaces listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix > >>> ignores the parameter by using network interfaces that are not > >>> listed. > >>> > >>> There is nothing mentioned in the Postfix documentation under the > >>> inet_interfaces parameter section that says the inet_interfaces > >>> parameter is for IPv4 only and that it will not have an effect on > >>> IPv6 interfaces. That claim is your fairy tale. > >>> > >>> > >>> K > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 5:57 pm > >>>> From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > >>>> > >>>> To: postfix-users@postfix.org > >>>> Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Kolusion K via > >>>> Postfix-users wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that > >>>>> is > >>>>> not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my > >>>>> experience > >>>>> is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect. > >>>> > >>>> No, it has exactly the documented effects, perhaps different from > >>>> your > >>>> naïve expectations for your particular use case. This is not the > >>>> forum > >>>> to seek "validation", the most you can expect from this list is > >&
[pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
Disabling IPv6 probably isn't an acceptable workaround anyway. What happens if both an IPv4 and IPv6 IP address is listed? Postfix may still use other network interfaces not listed (IP addresses). Changing the parameter name wouldn't be a bad idea either seeing parameter values are actually IP addresses and not interface names, as the parameter name suggests. K > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 5:11 am > From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: [pfx] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > Postfix needs to be patched so that the value of the inet_interfaces > parameter is obeyed regardless of whether or not IPv6 (or other IP versions?) > is enabled. > > K > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 4:57 am > > From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > > To: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > > Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > > > Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces parameter > > is described in the documentation as making Postfix use only the interfaces > > listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores the parameter by > > using network interfaces that are not listed. > > > > There is nothing mentioned in the Postfix documentation under the > > inet_interfaces parameter section that says the inet_interfaces parameter > > is for IPv4 only and that it will not have an effect on IPv6 interfaces. > > That claim is your fairy tale. > > > > > > K > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 5:57 pm > > > From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > > > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > > > Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is > > > > not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience > > > > is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect. > > > > > > No, it has exactly the documented effects, perhaps different from your > > > naïve expectations for your particular use case. This is not the forum > > > to seek "validation", the most you can expect from this list is > > > technical help to configure Postfix to meet your stated requirements. > > > > > > - The IPv4 addresses listed in inet_interfaces have no effect on > > > the choice of outbound IPv6 address when IPv6 is enabled. > > > > > > - When inet_interfaces list no IPv4 addresses other than loopback > > > addresses, or lists multiple non-loopback IPv4 addresses, then > > > inet_interfaces also has no effect on the choice of outbound IPv4 > > > addresses. > > > > > > - To be sure that a particular IPv4 or IPv6 source address is used, > > > configure an explicit "smtp_bind_address" or "smtp_bind_address6". > > > - To be sure that IPv6 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv4". > > > - To be sure that IPv4 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv6". > > > > > > - If you have just one IPv4 address suitable for both sending and > > > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv4 address in inet_interfaces. > > > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address", though an > > > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > > > - If you have just one IPv6 address suitable for both sending and > > > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv6 address in inet_interfaces. > > > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address6", though an > > > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > > > - In either case disable any protocol that is not at all suitable for > > > receiving or sending email. > > > > > > -- > > > Viktor. > > > ___ > > > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > > > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org > > ___ > > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
Postfix needs to be patched so that the value of the inet_interfaces parameter is obeyed regardless of whether or not IPv6 (or other IP versions?) is enabled. K > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2023 at 4:57 am > From: "Kolusion K via Postfix-users" > To: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces parameter > is described in the documentation as making Postfix use only the interfaces > listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores the parameter by using > network interfaces that are not listed. > > There is nothing mentioned in the Postfix documentation under the > inet_interfaces parameter section that says the inet_interfaces parameter is > for IPv4 only and that it will not have an effect on IPv6 interfaces. That > claim is your fairy tale. > > > K > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 5:57 pm > > From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > > Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users > > wrote: > > > > > Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is > > > not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience > > > is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect. > > > > No, it has exactly the documented effects, perhaps different from your > > naïve expectations for your particular use case. This is not the forum > > to seek "validation", the most you can expect from this list is > > technical help to configure Postfix to meet your stated requirements. > > > > - The IPv4 addresses listed in inet_interfaces have no effect on > > the choice of outbound IPv6 address when IPv6 is enabled. > > > > - When inet_interfaces list no IPv4 addresses other than loopback > > addresses, or lists multiple non-loopback IPv4 addresses, then > > inet_interfaces also has no effect on the choice of outbound IPv4 > > addresses. > > > > - To be sure that a particular IPv4 or IPv6 source address is used, > > configure an explicit "smtp_bind_address" or "smtp_bind_address6". > > - To be sure that IPv6 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv4". > > - To be sure that IPv4 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv6". > > > > - If you have just one IPv4 address suitable for both sending and > > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv4 address in inet_interfaces. > > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address", though an > > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > > - If you have just one IPv6 address suitable for both sending and > > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv6 address in inet_interfaces. > > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address6", though an > > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > > - In either case disable any protocol that is not at all suitable for > > receiving or sending email. > > > > -- > > Viktor. > > ___ > > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
Its not naive, its a fact- Postfix is broken. The inet_interfaces parameter is described in the documentation as making Postfix use only the interfaces listed for the parameter. In reality, Postfix ignores the parameter by using network interfaces that are not listed. There is nothing mentioned in the Postfix documentation under the inet_interfaces parameter section that says the inet_interfaces parameter is for IPv4 only and that it will not have an effect on IPv6 interfaces. That claim is your fairy tale. K > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 5:57 pm > From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: [pfx] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > > > Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is > > not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience > > is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect. > > No, it has exactly the documented effects, perhaps different from your > naïve expectations for your particular use case. This is not the forum > to seek "validation", the most you can expect from this list is > technical help to configure Postfix to meet your stated requirements. > > - The IPv4 addresses listed in inet_interfaces have no effect on > the choice of outbound IPv6 address when IPv6 is enabled. > > - When inet_interfaces list no IPv4 addresses other than loopback > addresses, or lists multiple non-loopback IPv4 addresses, then > inet_interfaces also has no effect on the choice of outbound IPv4 > addresses. > > - To be sure that a particular IPv4 or IPv6 source address is used, > configure an explicit "smtp_bind_address" or "smtp_bind_address6". > - To be sure that IPv6 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv4". > - To be sure that IPv4 is not used, set "inet_protocols = ipv6". > > - If you have just one IPv4 address suitable for both sending and > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv4 address in inet_interfaces. > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address", though an > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > - If you have just one IPv6 address suitable for both sending and > receiving mail, set it as the only IPv6 address in inet_interfaces. > You then don't need an explicit "smtp_bind_address6", though an > explicit setting may be sensible in some cases. > - In either case disable any protocol that is not at all suitable for > receiving or sending email. > > -- > Viktor. > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Fw: Re: Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
Hang on a second... my Postfix is using a network interface that is not the one set with the inet_interfaces parameter. So, my experience is true- the inet_interfaces parameter has no effect. K > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 4:36 pm > From: "Kolusion K" > To: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users" > Subject: Re: [pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > Yes, and I also told you how I didn't know what most of the results from > tcpdump meant. > > K > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 4:21 pm > > From: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users" > > To: "Kolusion K" > > Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org > > Subject: [pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > > > Kolusion K via Postfix-users: > > Yesterday you sent a tcpdump trace where Postfix fails to make a > > connection from 192.168.2.2: > > > > 23:11:38.333669 IP 192.168.2.2.40415 > 47.246.137.47.smtp: Flags > > [S], seq 3300139944, win 65280, options [mss 1360,sackOK,TS val > > 912086021 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > > > Today you claim that Postfix does NOT USE THAT IP ADDRESS. > > > > I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf': > > > > inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2 > > > > The problem is, Postfix is not using this interface and is > > instead using another interface to send e-mail. > > > > In fact it does use the IP address, but there is no route from > > 192.168.2.2 to the remote destination. > > > > According to the inet_interfaces manpage, EMPHASIS ADDED FOR CLARITY: > > > >When inet_interfaces specifies just one IPv4 and/or IPv6 address > > that > >is not a loopback address, the Postfix SMTP client will use this > > ad? > >dress as the IP source address for outbound mail. Support for IPv6 > > is > >available in Postfix version 2.2 and later. > > > >On a multi-homed firewall with separate Postfix instances listening > > on > >the "inside" and "outside" interfaces, THIS CAN PREVENT EACH > > INSTANCE > >FROM BEING ABLE TO REACH REMOTE SMTP SERVERS ON THE "OTHER SIDE" OF > > THE > >FIREWALL. Setting smtp_bind_address to 0.0.0.0 avoids the > > potential > >problem for IPv4, and setting smtp_bind_address6 to :: solves the > > prob- > >lem for IPv6. > > > >A better solution for multi-homed firewalls is to leave > > inet_interfaces > >at the default value and instead use explicit IP addresses in the > > mas- > >ter.cf SMTP server definitions. This preserves the Postfix > > SMTP > >client's loop detection, by ensuring that each side of the > > firewall > >knows that the other IP address is still the same host. > > Setting > >$inet_interfaces to a single IPv4 and/or IPV6 address is primarily > > use- > >ful with virtual hosting of domains on secondary IP addresses, > > when > >each IP address serves a different domain (and has a different > > $myhost- > >name setting). > > > > Your complex network configuration makes it a multi-homed host, and it is > > subject to the same problems as described above. > > > > Wietse > > ___ > > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation
Yes, and I also told you how I didn't know what most of the results from tcpdump meant. K > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 at 4:21 pm > From: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users" > To: "Kolusion K" > Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: [pfx] Re: Contradicting Postfix documentation > > Kolusion K via Postfix-users: > Yesterday you sent a tcpdump trace where Postfix fails to make a > connection from 192.168.2.2: > > 23:11:38.333669 IP 192.168.2.2.40415 > 47.246.137.47.smtp: Flags > [S], seq 3300139944, win 65280, options [mss 1360,sackOK,TS val > 912086021 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > Today you claim that Postfix does NOT USE THAT IP ADDRESS. > > I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf': > > inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2 > > The problem is, Postfix is not using this interface and is > instead using another interface to send e-mail. > > In fact it does use the IP address, but there is no route from > 192.168.2.2 to the remote destination. > > According to the inet_interfaces manpage, EMPHASIS ADDED FOR CLARITY: > >When inet_interfaces specifies just one IPv4 and/or IPv6 address that >is not a loopback address, the Postfix SMTP client will use this ad? >dress as the IP source address for outbound mail. Support for IPv6 is >available in Postfix version 2.2 and later. > >On a multi-homed firewall with separate Postfix instances listening on >the "inside" and "outside" interfaces, THIS CAN PREVENT EACH INSTANCE >FROM BEING ABLE TO REACH REMOTE SMTP SERVERS ON THE "OTHER SIDE" OF THE >FIREWALL. Setting smtp_bind_address to 0.0.0.0 avoids the potential >problem for IPv4, and setting smtp_bind_address6 to :: solves the prob- >lem for IPv6. > >A better solution for multi-homed firewalls is to leave inet_interfaces >at the default value and instead use explicit IP addresses in the mas- >ter.cf SMTP server definitions. This preserves the Postfix SMTP >client's loop detection, by ensuring that each side of the firewall >knows that the other IP address is still the same host. Setting >$inet_interfaces to a single IPv4 and/or IPV6 address is primarily use- >ful with virtual hosting of domains on secondary IP addresses, when >each IP address serves a different domain (and has a different $myhost- >name setting). > > Your complex network configuration makes it a multi-homed host, and it is > subject to the same problems as described above. > > Wietse > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Contradicting Postfix documentation
Greetings I have found some contradicting Postfix documentation and I feel that it is my duty to make a revelation of it. https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html The inet_interface parameter is described as for receiving connections; The smtp_bind_address parameter is described as for making connections, and note 1 describes the inet_interface parameter as for making connections, contradicting the inet_interface parameter description. My experience with the inet_interface parameter is that it has no effect on making connections. Cheers Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Postfix is not using a specified interface
Hello I have specified Postfix to use a certain interface in 'main.cf': inet_interfaces = 192.168.2.2 http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_interfaces The problem is, Postfix is not using this interface and is instead using another interface to send e-mail. Is this a bug? Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: E-mail delivery problem
"Wrong! The las line in your attachment (very uncomfortable way for sharing information that need quoting), states: inet_protocols = all You need to have a thorugh read of Postfix documentation." Why is it uncomfortable? No I don't need to read the documentation. There is a problem with Postfix. Postfix is configured to use one interface 192.168.2.2. Why is it not binding to '192.168.2.2'? "You are reaching the IPv6 host *directly*. Many ISPs are now offering IPv6 because of the IPv4 exhaustion and all the problems associated with Carrier Grade NAT." YOU ARE RIGHT! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS! IPv6 port 25 is NOT blocked! I always assume that because my ISP blocks IPv4 port 25, then IPv6 port 25 would be blocked as well! But it is not blocked! Is this customary for ISP's to block IPv4 port 25 but not IPv6 port 25? > Here is an extract of my mail log, demonstrating what I mean: > > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: warning: hostname > generalpurpose does not resolve to address 192.168.2.2 > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: connect from > unknown[192.168.2.2] > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: 2616D80098: > client=unknown[192.168.2.2] > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/cleanup[3568]: 2616D80098: > message-id=<13a7d177-u778-3a84-3egd-19283c859...@example.com> > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/qmgr[2241]: 2616D80098: > from=, size=1966, nrcpt=1 (queue active) > Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: disconnect from > unknown[192.168.2.2] ehlo=2 starttls=1 mail=1 rcpt=1 data=1 quit=1 > commands=7 > Apr 12 23:06:16 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[3569]: connect to > pechora1.icann.org[192.0.33.71]:25: Connection timed out > Apr 12 23:06:42 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[3569]: 2616D80098: > to=, > relay=pechora3.icann.org[2620:0:2830:201::1:73]:25, delay=64, > delays=0.04/0.04/62/1.2, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued > as 0463C7002623) > Apr 12 23:06:42 generalpurpose postfix/qmgr[2241]: 2616D80098: > removed This is clear proof that your exit route over IPv4 has port 25 blocked, at leas to pechora1.icann.org[192.0.33.71] This I already know. This is why I use a VPN (192.168.2.2). My home server connects to my VPS via VPN, and the VPS forwards my traffic and vise versa. "Why don't you simply cut and paste the text, like you have done with the log, reducing the time others have to spend helping you?" Because some people don't like it. Why do you complain a lot? Never mind. So, why is Postfix not using the network interface 192.168.2.2? Thank you. You have lead me to also discovering my MX record is incorrect. I tried to find the IPv6 MX record to test my IPv6 port 25, and learnt there is no such thing. MX records point to a domain, and then it gets either a A or record. I have my server IP address as the MX record! This will be why some people have problems delivering mail to me! Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] E-mail delivery problem
Good day to all! So I have just had another look at my e-mail server regarding my situation, and I found something very odd. Postfix seems to be unable to send e-mail to IPv4 addresses, but it can send e-mail to IPv6 addresses. This is odd because Postfix is configured to use an IPv4 interface only, and its even more odd that the interface is a PPTP VPN tunnel which PPTP doesn't even support IPv6! What the ?!?!?!?! Here is an extract of my mail log, demonstrating what I mean: Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: warning: hostname generalpurpose does not resolve to address 192.168.2.2 Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: connect from unknown[192.168.2.2] Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: 2616D80098: client=unknown[192.168.2.2] Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/cleanup[3568]: 2616D80098: message-id=<13a7d177-u778-3a84-3egd-19283c859...@example.com> Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/qmgr[2241]: 2616D80098: from=, size=1966, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Apr 12 23:05:39 generalpurpose postfix/smtpd[3557]: disconnect from unknown[192.168.2.2] ehlo=2 starttls=1 mail=1 rcpt=1 data=1 quit=1 commands=7 Apr 12 23:06:16 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[3569]: connect to pechora1.icann.org[192.0.33.71]:25: Connection timed out Apr 12 23:06:42 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[3569]: 2616D80098: to=, relay=pechora3.icann.org[2620:0:2830:201::1:73]:25, delay=64, delays=0.04/0.04/62/1.2, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 0463C7002623) Apr 12 23:06:42 generalpurpose postfix/qmgr[2241]: 2616D80098: removed I have also attached my 'main.cf' configuration file. Sincerely, Kolusion main.cf Description: Binary data ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] E-mail delivery problem
Hello I e-mailed the mailing list earlier on about this problem, but now I am on my computer and I have gone over my e-mail server and VPS with a fine comb and confirmed everything looks good. So, I have a problem with e-mail delivery where I can receive e-mail from some people but not others, likewise, I can send e-mail to someone people but not others- the connection times out when Postfix tries to deliver e-mail and e-mail gets deferred. Now I have included configuration details of my e-mail server and VPS. Perhaps someone might see something wrong that I can't see. This is the configuration of my e-mail server and VPS, which the e-mail server uses for a source of internet access over a PPTP virtual network tunnel... E-mail server enp0s3 interface IP address: 192.168.1.2 E-mail server ppp0 interface IP address: 192.168.2.2 VPS enp6s18 interface IP address: 1.2.3.4 E-mail server ufw raw rules: ### tuple ### allow gre any 192.168.1.2 any 1.2.3.4 in_enp0s3 -A ufw-user-input -i enp0s3 -p gre -d 192.168.1.2 -s 1.2.3.4 -j ACCEPT ### tuple ### allow tcp 25 192.168.2.2 any 0.0.0.0/0 in_ppp0 -A ufw-user-input -i ppp0 -p tcp -d 192.168.2.2 --dport 25 -j ACCEPT VPS ufw raw rules: ### tuple ### allow tcp 1723 1.2.3.4 any 0.0.0.0/0 in_enp6s18 -A ufw-user-input -i enp6s18 -p tcp -d 1.2.3.4 --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT ### tuple ### allow gre any 1.2.3.4 any 0.0.0.0/0 in_enp6s18 -A ufw-user-input -i enp6s18 -p gre -d 1.2.3.4 -j ACCEPT ### tuple ### route:allow tcp 25 192.168.2.2 any 0.0.0.0/0 in_enp6s18 -A ufw-user-forward -i enp6s18 -p tcp -d 192.168.2.2 --dport 25 -j ACCEPT ### tuple ### route:allow tcp 25 0.0.0.0/0 any 192.168.2.2 in_ppp0 -A ufw-user-forward -i ppp0 -p tcp --dport 25 -s 192.168.2.2 -j ACCEPT VPS iptables commands at boot: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 1.2.3.4 -p tcp --dport 25 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.2.2 -p tcp --dport 25 -j DNAT --to 1.2.3.4 What could be causing my e-mail delivery problem? Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] smtp_tls_verify_cert_match parameter
Hello Regarding the smtp_tls_verify_cert_match parameter, is the configuration 'dot-nexthop' more stringent than 'nexthop'? Thank you Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] tls_high_cipherlist parameter
Hello Postfix's documentation for the tls_high_cipherlist parameter states to see the output of the command 'postconf -d' to see the default setting. Sadly, the documentation lacks specificness, and the output spit out about 500 lines, so I am not sure what I am suppose to be looking at. I found the parameter mentioned on one of the lines. I was expecting to see a list of ciphers, such as AES-256 ectetera, but I don't see any mention of a type of cipher, so I'm not sure if looking at the line for the tls_high_cipherlist parameter is what I am suppose to be looking at. Could anyone confirm if that is what I am suppose to be looking at and if I am correct in what I was expecting? Thanks Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Sorry for the double post
Sorry for double post about my e-mail problem. When I hit send, this crap e-mail service returned me to its FQDN landing page and I thought I lost my e-mail, so I logged in and wrote it all again. This time it sent, and then I returned to my inbox to find replies to the e-mail that appeared not to send. ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] E-mail problem
Hello So I have a problem sending and receiving e-mail from some people. The problem I have sending e-mail to some people is that Postfix says the connection times out when attempting to connect to the server. This is my setup: E-mail server connects to VPN on VPS on its WAN IP address using PPTP and obtains the IP address '192.168.2.2' on ppp0 interface, using gateway '192.168.2.1'. Postfix starts on e-mail server and uses '192.168.2.2' on ppp0 interface. E-mail server allows port 25 traffic in and out on '192.168.2.2' from anywhere on ppp0. VPS allows port 25 traffic in and out on WAN IP address on eth0 from anywhere. VPS allows port 25 traffic in and out on '192.168.2.1' on ppp0 from '192.168.2.2'. VPS routes port 25 traffic on WAN IP address on eth0 to '192.168.2.2'. VPS routes port 25 traffic from '192.168.2.2' on ppp0 to WAN IP address. MX record is VPS WAN IP address. The strange thing is, when I Telnet on port 25 on the VPS to the e-mail servers Postfix can't connect to from my e-mail server, I can connect to them. What could be causing Postfix being able to send e-mail to some servers but not others, and some people being able to e-mail me but not others? Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] E-mail problem
So I have a bizarre problem. I can't send e-mail to some servers but I can to others. The e-mail that doesn't get sent is due to the connection timing out to the remote server. Another strange problem is that some people can e-mail me while others can't. This is how my e-mail server is setup off the top of my head: E-mail server has a CG-NAT IP address. E-mail server connects to a VPN on a VPS. Postfix uses VPN interface '192.168.2.2'. VPS routes port 25 from WAN interface to '192.168.2.2'. VPS routes port 25 from '192.168.2.2' to WAN interface. E-mail server firewall allows port 25 in and out on '192.168.2.2'. VPS firewall allows port 25 in and out on WAN interface. MX record points to VPS WAN interface IP address. Everything should work, but it doesn't always. ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Painful Postfix
When I open a raw socket to the remote server on port 25 using telnet, I am able to connect and see the server announce itself, so, it is reasonable to assume that Postfix is doing the same and timing out during the SMTP transaction because Postfix is not having a problem sending mail to other servers. A reasonable person does not assume their software is always telling the truth. > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:45 pm > From: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users" > To: "Postfix users" > Subject: [pfx] Re: Painful Postfix > > Intrigued by a complaint about poor logging from Postfix, I decided > to investigate. > > What was logged? > > Apr 30 14:32:16 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[2299]: 78D1D80AD7: > to=, relay=none, delay=414074, delays=413981/0.19/93/0, > dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to > mxw.mxhichina.com[47.246.99.195]:25: Connection timed out) > > What failed? > > connect to mxw.mxhichina.com[ipaddr]. > > The attempt to connect to mxw.mxhichina.com[ipaddr] failed. > There was no TCP connection, thus no SMTP commands could be > sent, and no SMTP responses could be received. > > I like to think that a reasonable person would agree with the above > assessment. > > Why did it fail? > > Connection timed out. > > This is the system-defined error text for an error code that > is defined by a POSIX standard. > > I like to think that a reasonable person would agree that regardless > of what the exact error was, an attempt to log SMTP commands or > responses would be pointless, because there was no TCP connection. > > Wietse > ___ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Painful Postfix
Hello again My e-mail server is able to deliver e-mail to some hosts but will time out when attempting to deliver to other hosts. What could be causing this problem? Thanks Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Painful Postfix
Hello again Can somebody please tell me what levels are available for the 'debug_peer_level' parameter? The parameter is not fully documented. Also, can somebody please tell me if a parameter is used twice in 'main.cf', will the first line its used on be ignored if the parameter is used on a line after it? For example: Will this work? debug_peer_list = 47.246.99.195 debug_peer_list = 47.246.136.231 debug_peer_list = 47.246.137.47 Or would I need to use something like this? debug_peer_list = 47.246.99.195, 47.246.136.231, 47.246.137.47 Thanks Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Painful Postfix
So, I tried using the 'debug_peer_list' parameter like this, but it didn't work... debug_peer_list = 1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8 I did restart the Postfix service after applying the change to 'main.cf'. It looks like Postfix lacks the capability to show the SMTP session, right? Thanks Kolusion Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:54 PM From: "Kolusion K" To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Painful Postfix Hello again I am again trying to use the 'debug_peer_list' parameter to see if it will show me the SMTP session in the mail log. The e-mail address I am sending to has a server or servers with multiple IP addresses. How can I go about using multiple IP addresses with the 'debug_peer_list' parameter? Like this? debug_peer_list = 1.2.3.4 5.6.7.8 or perhaps like this? debug_peer_list = 1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8 Thanks Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Painful Postfix
Hello again I am again trying to use the 'debug_peer_list' parameter to see if it will show me the SMTP session in the mail log. The e-mail address I am sending to has a server or servers with multiple IP addresses. How can I go about using multiple IP addresses with the 'debug_peer_list' parameter? Like this? debug_peer_list = 1.2.3.4 5.6.7.8 or perhaps like this? debug_peer_list = 1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8 Thanks Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Re: Painful Postfix
This is the server log I get: Apr 30 14:32:16 generalpurpose postfix/smtp[2299]: 78D1D80AD7: to=, relay=none, delay=414074, delays=413981/0.19/93/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to mxw.mxhichina.com[47.246.99.195]:25: Connection timed out) The domain I am sending to has multiple e-mail server IP addresses. How can I add multiple IP addresses when using the 'debug_peer_list' attribute? Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:37 AM From: "Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users" To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: [pfx] Re: Painful Postfix On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 12:40:46PM +0200, Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > I am trying to send an e-mail, but the receving e-mail server is > timing out, as per Postfix's mail log file. 1. Per <https://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail> post (this time in plain text rather than HTML form!) your server's configuration settings: $ postconf -nf $ postconf -Mf being sure to not rewrap line breaks. Attach the output as a text file if that's the easiest way to preserve whitespace. 2. At what stage in the email transaction is the timeout occuring? Post the specific log entries related to the transmission of one or a few messages that time out. > I would like to see the SMTP session Postfix has with the receiving > e-mail server to see what is going wrong. If you add the remote IP address to debug_peer_list, the SMTP commands and responses received are be logged. If your syslog subsystem is not dropping messages, you'll find them in the log. > I have tried to use the 'debug_peer_list' parameter with the domain of > the e-mail address I am trying to send e-mail to, but nothing more > shows in the mail log. The "debug_peer_list" setting takes a list of remote SMTP server (MX host) IP addresses or hostnames, which is not the same as the remote domain. > I can't tap into the connection to view the session from outside > Postfix because the connection is encrypted. So at least an SMTP connection is established, and STARTTLS is accepted. -- Viktor. ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
[pfx] Painful Postfix
Hello I am having a painful experience with Postfix and I hope that someone can help me. I am trying to send an e-mail, but the receving e-mail server is timing out, as per Postfix's mail log file. When I create a raw socket to the receiving e-mail server, I can send and receive commands to it just fine. I would like to see the SMTP session Postfix has with the receiving e-mail server to see what is going wrong. I have tried to use the 'debug_peer_list' parametre with the domain of the e-mail address I am trying to send e-mail to, but nothing more shows in the mail log. I can't tap into the connection to view the session from outside Postfix because the connection is encrypted. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks Sincerely, Kolusion ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
