[pfx] Re: Reply To header

[Roger Klorese via Postfix-users]

Reply-To, not Reply To. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 28, 2023, at 11:51 PM, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2023, at 23:13, Noel Jones via Postfix-users 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 29, 2023, at 12:43 AM, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have an app that sends SMTP to post fix to deliver an email.  The first 
>>> line it sends after the DATA command is a Reply To line.  However, that 
>>> causes postfix to terminate the headers and puts the Reply To line after 
>>> the blank line at the end of theheaders.  As a result, none of the 
>>> following header lines are in the header and only show up in the text.  Is 
>>> this normal, or have I done something wrong?
>>> 
>> 
>> Sounds like your app is inserting a blank line where it shouldn’t. A tcp 
>> capture will show what’s actually being sent. 
>> 
> 
> That's what I thought also.  I checked and can't find one
> 
> Here is the tcpdump output from the DATA through the Reply to line which is 
> the first line sent after the DATA.
> 
> 
> 23:42:59.591170 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP 
> (6), length 58, bad cksum 0 (->3cbc)!)
> localhost.24534 > localhost.smtp: Flags [P.], cksum 0xfe2e (incorrect -> 
> 0x49b2), seq 69:75, ack 103, win 1277, options [nop,nop,TS val 2735927841 ecr 
> 2347198655], length 6: SMTP, length: 6
>   DATA
>   0x:  4500 003a  4000 4006  7f00 0001  E..:..@.@...
>   0x0010:  7f00 0001 5fd6 0019 1d84 3332 0c8e 3d62  _.32..=b
>   0x0020:  8018 04fd fe2e  0101 080a a312 f221  ...!
>   0x0030:  8be7 68bf 4441 5441 0d0a ..h.DATA..
> 23:42:59.591781 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP 
> (6), length 89, bad cksum 0 (->3c9d)!)
> localhost.smtp > localhost.24534: Flags [P.], cksum 0xfe4d (incorrect -> 
> 0xbe3b), seq 103:140, ack 75, win 1277, options [nop,nop,TS val 2347198656 
> ecr 2735927841], length 37: SMTP, length: 37
>   354 End data with .
>   0x:  4500 0059  4000 4006  7f00 0001  E..Y..@.@...
>   0x0010:  7f00 0001 0019 5fd6 0c8e 3d62 1d84 3338  .._...=b..38
>   0x0020:  8018 04fd fe4d  0101 080a 8be7 68c0  .Mh.
>   0x0030:  a312 f221 3335 3420 456e 6420 6461 7461  ...!354.End.data
>   0x0040:  2077 6974 6820 3c43 523e 3c4c 463e 2e3c  .with..<
>   0x0050:  4352 3e3c 4c46 3e0d 0a   CR>..
> 23:42:59.592129 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP 
> (6), length 94, bad cksum 0 (->3c98)!)
> localhost.24534 > localhost.smtp: Flags [P.], cksum 0xfe52 (incorrect -> 
> 0x1809), seq 75:117, ack 140, win 1277, options [nop,nop,TS val 2735927842 
> ecr 2347198656], length 42: SMTP, length: 42
>   Reply To: t...@vintagecorvettessocal.com
>   0x:  4500 005e  4000 4006  7f00 0001  E..^..@.@...
>   0x0010:  7f00 0001 5fd6 0019 1d84 3338 0c8e 3d87  _.38..=.
>   0x0020:  8018 04fd fe52  0101 080a a312 f222  .R."
>   0x0030:  8be7 68c0 5265 706c 7920 546f 3a20 7465  ..h.Reply.To:.te
>   0x0040:  7374 4076 696e 7461 6765 636f 7276 6574  st@vintagecorvet
>   0x0050:  7465 7373 6f63 616c 2e63 6f6d 0d0a   tessocal.com..
> 
> There is nothing between the DATA and Reply to except for the CRLF at the end 
> of the DATA.
> 
> -- Doug
> 
> ___
> 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

[P-U] Re: The joke writes itself.

[Roger Klorese via Postfix-users]

Wietse, as a non-native English-speaker: are you aware that “p-u” is a childish 
declaration that something stinks?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 9, 2023, at 2:10 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Peter via Postfix-users:
>>> On 10/03/23 10:04, Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote:
>>> I know that P-U stands for postfix users.  I get it that a short subject 
>>> tag was desired, but would [postfix] have been that much more distracting, 
>>> without adding the obvious third-grader label that might better be held by 
>>> qmail?
>> 
>> Indeed, please consider changing it.
> 
> There are three tags because there are three lists: postfix-users,
> postfix-devel, and postfix-announce.
> 
> I am subscribed to several mailing lists that have [uppercase
> abbreviation] as their tag, and that works well. None of those tags
> are more than 5 characters long. If I'd change anything I would
> delete the '-' in the middle of the current tag.
> 
>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

Re: Local user unknown - but should be virtual...

[Roger Klorese]

It was accidentally in both places. Removed from $mydestination it works fine. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 10, 2022, at 4:01 PM, Wietse Venema  wrote:
> 
> Roger Klorese:
>> When I mail to a list I now get:
>> 
>> : host
>> divine.onlinepolicy.net[216.252.162.112] said: 550 5.1.1
>> : Recipient address
>> rejected: User unknown in local recipient table (in reply to RCPT TO
>> command)
> 
> The recipient domain matches $mydestination, therefore the 
> recipientc arddress is validated with $local_recipient_maps or
> virtual_alias_maps.
> 
> Maybe ask this on a Sympa forum? Surely someone uses it with Postfix.
> 
>Wietse

Local user unknown - but should be virtual...

[Roger Klorese]

When I mail to a list I now get:

: host
divine.onlinepolicy.net[216.252.162.112] said: 550 5.1.1
: Recipient address
rejected: User unknown in local recipient table (in reply to RCPT TO
command)

...but...

[root@divine sympa]# grep virtual /etc/postfix/main.cf
#myhostname = virtual.domain.tld
# Do not specify the names of virtual domains - those domains are
#   /etc/passwd, /etc/aliases, or the $virtual_alias_maps files.
#   the $virtual_mailbox_maps files.
# - destinations that match $virtual_alias_domains,
# - destinations that match $virtual_mailbox_domains.
# local(8), relocated(5) and virtual(5) for the effects this has on
# aliases, canonical, virtual, relocated and .forward file lookups.
*virtual_mailbox_domains = /etc/postfix/local-host-names*
virtual_mailbox_maps = hash:/etc/sympa/transport.sympa,
hash:/etc/sympa/virtual.sympa
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/sympa/virtual.sympa

[root@divine sympa]# grep hosting /etc/postfix/local-host-names
hosting.onlinepolicy.net

[root@divine sympa]# grep list-owners-announce /etc/sympa/transport.sympa
list-owners-annou...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net  
sympa:list-owners-annou...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net

Re: execvp failure but command seems to be there

[Roger Klorese]

No. Thanks. It was a long-leftover 32-bit binary in the wrong place. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 4:23 AM, Wietse Venema  wrote:
> 
> Wietse

execvp failure but command seems to be there

[Roger Klorese]

CentOS 7.9 with SELinux off.

Log shows:

Mar 28 11:29:16 divine postfix/pipe[2685]: 21FE73000171E: 
to=, relay=sympa, 
delay=599, delays=599/0.06/0/0.04, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (temporary 
failure. Command output: pipe: fatal: pipe_command: execvp 
/var/sympa/bin/queue: No such file or directory )


[root@divine ~]# ls -ld /var
drwxr-xr-x 23 root root 320 Mar 28 00:19 /var
[root@divine ~]# ls -ld /var/sympa
drwxr-x--x. 14 sympa sympa 4096 Mar 26 14:45 /var/sympa
[root@divine ~]# ls -ld /var/sympa/bin
drwxr-xr-x. 5 sympa sympa 4096 Feb  8  2016 /var/sympa/bin
[root@divine ~]# ls -ld /var/sympa/bin/queue
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 sympa sympa 12963 Sep 12  2014 /var/sympa/bin/queue
[root@divine ~]# file !$
file /var/sympa/bin/queue
/var/sympa/bin/queue: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 
(SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, not 
stripped


aliases:

hosting.onlinepolicy.net-list-owners-announce: "| /home/sympa/bin/queue 
list-owners-annou...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net"

Re: Transport_regexp permission denied - I don't see why...

[Roger Klorese]

Right. Thanks - added in error. (Of course, I would have found it if the map 
ever got opened…)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 6:18 PM, raf  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:04:07AM -0700, Roger Klorese 
>  wrote:
> 
>> I am seeing:
>> 
>> Mar 27 00:48:28 divine postfix/trivial-rewrite[5272]: warning:
>> regexp:/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp is unavailable. open
>> /home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp: Permission denied
>> Mar 27 00:48:28 divine postfix/trivial-rewrite[5272]: warning:
>> regexp:/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp lookup error for
>> "list-owners-h...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net"
>> 
>> /^\.*-owner\@lhosting\.onlinepolicy\.net$/ sympabounce:
>> /^\.*\@hosting\.onlinepolicy\.net$/ sympa:
> 
> Also, the above regexes look wrong. These patterns
> match email addresses that start with any number
> of literal dot characters (".") followed by
> "-ow...@lhosting.onlinepolicy.net" or
> "@hosting.onlinepolicy.net"
> 
> So, it'll only match things like:
> 
>   -ow...@lhosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   .-ow...@lhosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   ..-ow...@lhosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   ...-ow...@lhosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   @hosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   .@hosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   ..@hosting.onlinepolicy.net
>   ...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net
> 
> The first \ in each pattern needs to be removed so
> that the .* can match any prefix.
> 
> cheers,
> raf
> 

Re: Transport_regexp permission denied - I don't see why...

[Roger Klorese]

Thanks. I disabled SElinux earlier, but forgot to when I reinstalled. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 1:33 AM, Bastian Blank 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:04:07AM -0700, Roger Klorese wrote:
>> [root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home
>> drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root 33 Mar 25 23:56 /home
>^
> 
> You have SELinux enabled.
> 
>> [root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home/sympa
>> drwxr-x--x. 14 sympa sympa 4096 Mar 26 14:45 /home/sympa
> 
> You don't want to install services into /home.  This is for users and
> current systems will disallow services not marked correctly from looking
> inside.
> 
> Use /srv or /var.
> 
> Bastian
> 
> -- 
> What kind of love is that?  Not to be loved; never to have shown love.
>-- Commissioner Nancy Hedford, "Metamorphosis",
>   stardate 3219.8

Transport_regexp permission denied - I don't see why...

[Roger Klorese]

I am seeing:

Mar 27 00:48:28 divine postfix/trivial-rewrite[5272]: warning: 
regexp:/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp is unavailable. open 
/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp: Permission denied
Mar 27 00:48:28 divine postfix/trivial-rewrite[5272]: warning: 
regexp:/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp lookup error for 
"list-owners-h...@hosting.onlinepolicy.net"


/^\.*-owner\@lhosting\.onlinepolicy\.net$/ sympabounce:
/^\.*\@hosting\.onlinepolicy\.net$/ sympa:

[root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home
drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root 33 Mar 25 23:56 /home
[root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home/sympa
drwxr-x--x. 14 sympa sympa 4096 Mar 26 14:45 /home/sympa
[root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home/sympa/etc
drwxr-xr-x. 5 sympa sympa 188 Mar 27 00:36 /home/sympa/etc
[root@divine etc]# ls -ld /home/sympa/etc/tr*
-rw-r--r--. 1 sympa sympa   100 Mar 27 00:22 
/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp
-rw-r--r--. 1 sympa sympa 12288 Mar 27 00:35 
/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp.db

[root@divine etc]# grep sympa /etc/group
sympa:x:990:postfix
[root@divine etc]# grep sympa /etc/passwd
sympa:x:994:990:System User for Sympa:/var/lib/sympa:/sbin/nologin

[root@divine etc]# grep transport_reg /etc/postfix/main.cf
transport_maps = regexp:/home/sympa/etc/transport_regexp

I'm sure I'm staring right at it, but I've been doing so for hours... Ideas?

Re: need help finding a missing email. thanks for looking

[Roger Klorese]

They don't. Addresses in the headers are usually used as envelope recipients 
(RCPT TO:) by the sending system. The receiving system only looks at the 
envelope. It doesn't care what's in the To: or CC: headers. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Fazzina, Angelo  
> wrote:
> 
> Sorry for my lack of indepth knowledge of postfix.
> Is there a link to read on how email addresses in CC: field get processed  by 
> postfix?
> Googling has not help so far.
> -ALF
> 
> -Angelo Fazzina
> Operating Systems Programmer / Analyst 
> University of Connecticut,  UITS, SSG, Server Systems
> 860-486-9075
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org 
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 3:55 PM
> To: Postfix users 
> Subject: Re: need help finding a missing email. thanks for looking
> 
> Fazzina, Angelo:
>> I have this email that had 2 users in the CC field, and only one got the 
>> email.
>> Anyone see any obvious reason why ?
>> mehgan.willi...@uconn.edu did NOT get the email.
>> 
>> My guess is postfix messed up reading the CC field ?
> 
> Postfix does not deliver to CC headers. Instead, recipients are
> specified with the RCPT TO command (in SMTP).
> 
>> Jan  2 14:38:40 mta2 postfix/smtpd[27910]: 30B066FA: 
>> client=spam2.uits.uconn.edu[137.99.25.229]
>> Jan  2 14:38:40 mta2 postfix/cleanup[27951]: 30B066FA: warning: header 
>> Subject: Re: introductions from spam2.uits.uconn.edu[137.99.25.229]; 
>> from= to= proto=ESMTP 
>> helo=
>> Jan  2 14:38:40 mta2 postfix/cleanup[27951]: 30B066FA: 
>> message-id=<931694ed-c8d9-488c-9868-a675c37be...@supporttaskforce.com>
>> Jan  2 14:38:40 mta2 postfix/qmgr[7452]: 30B066FA: 
>> from=, size=263848, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> 
> The above message has ONE RECIPIENT (specified with RCPT TO).
> 
>> Jan  2 14:38:43 mta2 postfix/smtp[26955]: 30B066FA: 
>> to=, 
>> orig_to=,
>> relay=uconn-mail-onmicrosoft-com.mail.protection.outlook.com[207.46.163.247]:25,
>>  delay=3.1, delays=0.02/0/0.27/2.8, dsn=2.6.0,
>> status=sent (250 2.6.0 
>> <931694ed-c8d9-488c-9868-a675c37be...@supporttaskforce.com> 
>> [InternalId=102069897791116,
>> Hostname=BLUPR0501MB898.namprd05.prod.outlook.com] 271315 bytes in 1.201, 
>> 220.548 KB/sec Queued mail for delivery)
>> Jan  2 14:38:43 mta2 postfix/qmgr[7452]: 30B066FA: removed
> 
>Wietse