Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 2010-01-21 8:23 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I'm using IMAP and TB3. So I'm sure this is the same bug. Interestingly, like I said, the filter on Sender works fine for newly arriving messages. It just doesn't work on messages already in the inbox when running the filter manually. I don't have offline mode configured. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184490 If you read the whole thing you'll find your exact problem - works on new mail, but not existing. The workaround is to set the folder for offline mode and let it download everything... not a pleasant thought when you have 16+ accounts, some with hundreds of folders and many GBs of email... -- Best regards, Charles
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 2010-01-22 5:36 PM, Charles Marcus wrote: Here's the bug: Sorry, meant to send that direct to Stan...
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 2010-01-19, Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com) wrote: So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing the headers correctly or obeying custom headers I plug in. Hell, it won't even filter on Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org for Pete's sake and Sender is built into the filter, not custom, IIRC. What version of TBird? Are you using IMAP? TBird won't process custom headers on an IMAP account unless you have the folder set to full offline mode (yes, I consider this a bug, and I do believe there is at least one reported already, so be sure to search before opening a new one). 'Sender' is not a built in header (in TB2 or 3.0), but 'From' is. So, if you're using IMAP, thats the bug. -- Best regards, Charles
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
Charles Marcus put forth on 1/21/2010 6:05 AM: On 2010-01-19, Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com) wrote: So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing the headers correctly or obeying custom headers I plug in. Hell, it won't even filter on Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org for Pete's sake and Sender is built into the filter, not custom, IIRC. What version of TBird? Are you using IMAP? TBird won't process custom headers on an IMAP account unless you have the folder set to full offline mode (yes, I consider this a bug, and I do believe there is at least one reported already, so be sure to search before opening a new one). 'Sender' is not a built in header (in TB2 or 3.0), but 'From' is. So, if you're using IMAP, thats the bug. Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I'm using IMAP and TB3. So I'm sure this is the same bug. Interestingly, like I said, the filter on Sender works fine for newly arriving messages. It just doesn't work on messages already in the inbox when running the filter manually. I don't have offline mode configured. -- Stan
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
Stan Hoeppner a écrit : Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to undisclosed recipients instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried received and return-path and all kinds of header checks in the T-Bird message filter, and none of them work on this message. They clearly should. So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing the headers correctly or obeying custom headers I plug in. Hell, it won't even filter on Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org for Pete's sake and Sender is built into the filter, not custom, IIRC. There's no bug to field. postfix-users mail contains: Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Precedence: bulk List-Post: mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org List-Help: http://www.postfix.org/lists.html List-Unsubscribe: mailto:majord...@postfix.org List-Subscribe: mailto:majord...@postfix.org so you can use List-Post or Sender (it is unfortunate that there is no List-Id header...). so on T-Bird, when you create a filter, in the header field, select the last value to add a new header. add List-Post. Use this to add other headers (List-Id, Sender, X-Spam-Status, ... whatever). then you can filter based on the newly added header. Regardless of the T-Bird issue, could we all please reply to the list address instead of burying it in a BCC? You're using the wrong tool. From:, To:, Cc: ... are not the right headers to identify list mail. If you check my replies, most of the time, you won't see a To header, but a Cc only. This is because I manually remove the To (which is the original From:) unless I want to Cc the original sender. This is because TB doesn't have a reply to list button (well, not in the packaged version I use...). That's just plain silly. Keep calm Stan! Consider this to be a good lesson: your filtering approach is suboptimal. For most mailing lists, you can use one of: List-Id List-Post Sender except maybe for some exceptions (but then suggest to the list admins to implement the List-Id header).
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
mouss put forth on 1/20/2010 2:26 PM: That's just plain silly. Keep calm Stan! I was calm. I had no exclamation point there. ;) Consider this to be a good lesson: your filtering approach is suboptimal. For most mailing lists, you can use one of: It _was_ less than optimal. List-Id List-Post Sender I've got just Sender: now and it works fine. And up until your email in question, I'd never had a problem. except maybe for some exceptions (but then suggest to the list admins to implement the List-Id header). There's still a bug. After I fixed my rule to filter on Sender, and ran the filter, it absolutely would not pull your message into the appropriate folder, not matter what head I selected, and I tried them all, some 20 or so. Everything coming in after yours was pulled on Sender: into the postfix-users folder, but your message would not pull running the filter manually. _That_ is the bug. The filter was working on any new messages arriving in the inbox, but it wouldn't work on your message already in the inbox. And yes, I had the appropriate option selected to run the filter on messages already in the inbox folder. -- Stan
Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
Hi, after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line 0: ignoring unrecognized request main.cf: check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check file: reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org This worked perfectly fine on etch - now on lenny i get this error - what is the issue? (btw it is intended to store this in a separate file instead of appending reject_rbl_client to the main.cf options) Thanks BTW: I get some other strange warnings after dist upgrade postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: redirecting the request to postfix-owned data_directory /var/lib/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtp_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: redirecting the request to postfix-owned data_directory /var/lib/postfix
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 1/19/2010 9:15 AM, Harakiri wrote: Hi, after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line 0: ignoring unrecognized request main.cf: check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check file: reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org This worked perfectly fine on etch - now on lenny i get this error - what is the issue? (btw it is intended to store this in a separate file instead of appending reject_rbl_client to the main.cf options) Thanks I can't imagine this ever worked as you present it here. At the least, your pcre file contents should look something like /^/ reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org If you need more help, please see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail BTW: I get some other strange warnings after dist upgrade postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: redirecting the request to postfix-owned data_directory /var/lib/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtp_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: redirecting the request to postfix-owned data_directory /var/lib/postfix It's expected that one will read the RELEASE_NOTES when upgrading or installing. -- Noel Jones
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
Harakiri: Hi, after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line 0: ignoring unrecognized request main.cf: check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check file: reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org That is not a valid PCRE file entry, and it has never been valid. Postfix promises compatibility only for behavior that is promised by documentation. Postfix behavior for invalid inputs is subject to change without prior warning. postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. Wietse
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: That is not a valid PCRE file entry, and it has never been valid. Postfix promises compatibility only for behavior that is promised by documentation. Postfix behavior for invalid inputs is subject to change without prior warning. ok, i understand that postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this) - i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any needed steps during an upgrade (or installation). Furthermore - there is NO RELESAE_NOTES file on a debian lenny installation of postfix. I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. Same with the TLS changes i just read up. Wietse
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:57:02AM -0800, Harakiri wrote: --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /var/spool/postfix See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this) - Right, a Debian bug/issue should be directed to the Debian people. i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any needed steps during an upgrade (or installation). In reality this is very difficult. Postfix tends to handle its own upgrades (from source) pretty well, but packaging systems often encounter problems. Or maybe it is only for the users who didn't find or didn't read the packager's instructions? I don't know. Furthermore - there is NO RELESAE_NOTES file on a debian lenny installation of postfix. I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. This is worth complaining about, IMO. If a user should make the conscious decision to not install the documentation with a given package, that's the user's fault, but the default install should provide documentation. Same with the TLS changes i just read up. -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless /dev/rob0 or not-spam is in Subject: header
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri wrote: See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this) - i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any needed steps during an upgrade (or installation). Furthermore - there is NO RELESAE_NOTES file on a debian lenny installation of postfix. I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. Same with the TLS changes i just read up. The postfix-users list is not the correct forum for discussing Debian port policy. If you have a problem with a Debian port installation policy, you should take that up with the Debian port maintainer on a Debian specific list. -- Noel Jones
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote: From: Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org Subject: Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny? To: postfix-users@postfix.org Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 11:42 AM On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri wrote: See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this) - i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any needed steps during an upgrade (or installation). Furthermore - there is NO RELESAE_NOTES file on a debian lenny installation of postfix. I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. Same with the TLS changes i just read up. The postfix-users list is not the correct forum for discussing Debian port policy. If you have a problem with a Debian port installation policy, you should take that up with the Debian port maintainer on a Debian specific list. hey, reading comprehension fail? this was just a reply to vietse and i specifically stated this list is not the right place - i only stated a fact good job to complain about that
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On 1/19/2010 10:51 AM, Harakiri wrote: --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Noel Jonesnjo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote: From: Noel Jonesnjo...@megan.vbhcs.org Subject: Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny? To: postfix-users@postfix.org Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 11:42 AM On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri wrote: See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is created with a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste. I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this) - i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any needed steps during an upgrade (or installation). Furthermore - there is NO RELESAE_NOTES file on a debian lenny installation of postfix. I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. Same with the TLS changes i just read up. The postfix-users list is not the correct forum for discussing Debian port policy. If you have a problem with a Debian port installation policy, you should take that up with the Debian port maintainer on a Debian specific list. hey, reading comprehension fail? this was just a reply to vietse and i specifically stated this list is not the right place - i only stated a fact good job to complain about that Sorry for the misunderstanding. You complained about your postfix installation, and wrote maybe this isn't the right place to complain about Debian's handling of the upgrade. It's not. That's the facts. Over and out. -- Noel Jones
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to undisclosed recipients instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried received and return-path and all kinds of header checks in the T-Bird message filter, and none of them work on this message. They clearly should. So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing the headers correctly or obeying custom headers I plug in. Hell, it won't even filter on Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org for Pete's sake and Sender is built into the filter, not custom, IIRC. Regardless of the T-Bird issue, could we all please reply to the list address instead of burying it in a BCC? That's just plain silly. Thanks. -- Stan
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:15:59 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote: Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to undisclosed recipients instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried received and return-path and all kinds of header checks in the T-Bird message filter, and none of them work on this message. They clearly should. So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing the headers correctly or obeying custom headers I plug in. Hell, it won't even filter on Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org for Pete's sake and Sender is built into the filter, not custom, IIRC. Regardless of the T-Bird issue, could we all please reply to the list address instead of burying it in a BCC? That's just plain silly. I only accept mail to post...@johnpeach.com from cloud9.net and I do the same thing for other mailing lists to which I subscribe - that should get rid of your bcc problems.. -- John
Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
/dev/rob0 put forth on 1/19/2010 10:41 AM: I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file. This is worth complaining about, IMO. If a user should make the conscious decision to not install the documentation with a given package, that's the user's fault, but the default install should provide documentation. I didn't do anything special when I upgraded from Etch to Lenny some many months ago in 2009, and I have all the docs. I upgraded via aptitude from the mirrors. If the OP upgraded via local media (CD/DVD) I guess it's possible the routine is somehow different, but I doubt it. The docs are all zipped but they're all here, including the RELEASE_NOTES. greer:/home/stan# la /usr/share/doc/postfix/ total 604K drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4.0K Oct 3 06:21 . drwxr-xr-x 446 root root 12K Jan 18 20:52 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4.0K Oct 21 2005 examples drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4.0K Oct 3 06:21 html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.9K Sep 14 2008 ADDRESS_CLASS_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11K Sep 14 2008 ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.4K Sep 14 2008 ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4.3K Sep 14 2008 BACKSCATTER_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.8K Sep 14 2008 BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4.3K Sep 14 2008 BUILTIN_FILTER_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.7K Sep 14 2008 CDB_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.9K Sep 14 2008 COMPATIBILITY -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.2K Sep 14 2008 CONNECTION_CACHE_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.3K Sep 14 2008 CONTENT_INSPECTION_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 257 Sep 14 2008 CYRUS_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4.5K Sep 14 2008 DATABASE_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.3K Sep 14 2008 DB_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.3K Sep 14 2008 DEBUG_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.8K Sep 14 2008 DSN_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.8K Sep 14 2008 ETRN_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.8K Sep 14 2008 FILTER_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4.5K Sep 14 2008 IPV6_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.0K Sep 14 2008 LDAP_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.7K Sep 14 2008 LINUX_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1K Sep 14 2008 LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.0K Sep 14 2008 MAILDROP_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.9K Sep 14 2008 MILTER_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.0K Sep 14 2008 MYSQL_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 535 Sep 14 2008 NEWS.Debian.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.6K Sep 14 2008 NFS_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.2K Sep 14 2008 PACKAGE_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.9K Sep 14 2008 PCRE_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.1K Sep 14 2008 PGSQL_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.2K Sep 14 2008 PORTING -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 234 Sep 14 2008 QMQP_README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13K Sep 14 2008 QSHAPE_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.2K Sep 14 2008 README.Debian -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.5K Sep 14 2008 README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.4K Sep 14 2008 README.proto -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Sep 14 2008 RELEASE_NOTES.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.4K Sep 14 2008 RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.3K Sep 14 2008 SASL_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 20K Sep 14 2008 SCHEDULER_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.0K Sep 14 2008 SMTPD_ACCESS_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.2K Sep 14 2008 SMTPD_POLICY_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.7K Sep 14 2008 SMTPD_PROXY_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4.1K Sep 14 2008 SOHO_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.3K Sep 14 2008 STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.0K Sep 14 2008 STRESS_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15K Sep 14 2008 TLS_LEGACY_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 26K Sep 14 2008 TLS_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7.6K Sep 14 2008 TUNING_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.8K Sep 14 2008 UUCP_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.5K Sep 14 2008 VERP_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6.3K Sep 14 2008 VIRTUAL_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3.1K Sep 14 2008 XCLIENT_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.9K Sep 14 2008 XFORWARD_README.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 28K Sep 14 2008 changelog.Debian.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 165K Sep 14 2008 changelog.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18K Sep 14 2008 copyright -- Stan
