Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send them
an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's giving
false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready tried Sender Auth Test Service [EMAIL
Hi!
Blaise Hurtlin schrieb:
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use the Postfix to
send mails. On Postfix, if the
Robert Schetterer wrote:
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
them an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
giving false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready tried Sender Auth
James Brown schrieb:
Robert Schetterer wrote:
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
them an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
giving false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, James Brown wrote:
Robert Schetterer wrote:
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
them an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
giving false results somehow.
Thanks,
James,
I'm sending this reply using Thunderbird rather than Mail.app to see how
the headers differ.
I've tried sending without going through the ASSP anti-spam proxy to no
avail. Likewise using amavisd-new.
Yes, this one is a PASS!
It still has two MIME-Version header fields, but unlike
Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Anton Yuzhaninov:
In postfix-2.5.4 environment variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME is not set at
all, if hostname is unknown.
Older version work in different way - env variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME set
to string unknown.
Why this
Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
Anton Yuzhaninov:
In postfix-2.5.4 environment variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME is not set at
all, if hostname is unknown.
Older version work in different way - env variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME
set to string
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:39:25PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Although there is some overlap of which method to use when,
generally one would use virtual_alias_maps to duplicate mail
for specified users, and recipient_bcc_maps to duplicate mail
for everyone in a specific domain.
Another
James,
I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
Mark
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:39:25PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Although there is some overlap of which method to use when,
generally one would use virtual_alias_maps to duplicate mail
for specified users, and recipient_bcc_maps to duplicate mail
for everyone in a
Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use
2008/9/25 Noel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
So I have the following lines in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
permit_mynetworks
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/9/25 Noel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
So I have the following lines in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
permit_mynetworks
Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use
On 25/09/2008, at 11:03 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
James,
I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
Mark
Yes, I thought it must be DKIM-clean,
James Brown wrote:
[snip]
The Astaro box is doing S/MIME signing and encrypting, but I got the
same DKIM failure with it turned off.
when you test, make sure turning off really mean it does not pass
through. and prove it (in short, look for a proff that it is so. don't
trust your
2008/9/25 mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/9/25 Noel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
So I have the following lines in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
Hi all
I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy loaded and with
a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have CentOS5 with
postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both machines there is a
mail account signed on the same mailing list (in particular, the
James Brown:
On 25/09/2008, at 11:03 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
James,
I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
Mark
Yes, I
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 09:21:54AM -0400, Justin McAleer wrote:
Another difference is that to the extent possible, failures to deliver
BCC copies do not generate bounces, so for archive/forensic/... copies,
BCC is often best.
I've always had concerns over the bcc bounce situation. Can you
Matteo Niccoli:
Wietse Venema ha scritto:
Look at the virtual(8) delivery agent. It uses lookup tables
to map a recipient to a pathname, and to look up the UID/GID
information. Such tables can be generated programmatically.
http://www.postfix.org/virtual.8.html
Luigi Iotti:
Hi all
I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy loaded and with
a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have CentOS5 with
postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both machines there is a
mail account signed on the same mailing list
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the smtpd process
becomes un-stuck more than 9 minutes later. In the mean time, the
SMTP client and the cleanup process
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever catch
spam on your server? it never caught anything here.
I don't use it
Da: Wietse Venema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luigi Iotti:
Hi all
I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy
loaded and with
a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have
CentOS5 with
postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both
machines
I know I'm missing something simple, but I'm going blind trying to
find it. Any help much appreciated.
I've got a new freebsd box set up. I want the [daily|weekly|monthly]
periodic reports to be delivered to my central mail server, not
locally. This machine does not otherwise in any way handle
Kurt Buff wrote, at 09/25/2008 12:47 PM:
I'm getting messages in /var/log/maillog about mail looping back to
myself, and the mail is discarded.
Sep 25 03:01:21 loki postfix/smtp[24894]: 021951A4CEC:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=0.01, delays=0.01/0/0/0,
dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced
Victor Duchovni:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the smtpd process
becomes un-stuck more than 9 minutes later. In the mean time, the
SMTP client
Henrik K wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever catch
spam on your server? it never caught anything here.
I
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
Try:
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost
Note, with the default setting append_dot_mydomain = yes, mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Noel Jones wrote:
mouss wrote:
He already has permit_mynetworks and so on. so his problem is
different (and probably rare). He needs to exclude his domains from
check_mx_access.
Using a check_sender_access whitelist as posted earlier is one solution.
a few other obvious solutions:
- not
mouss wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever
catch spam on your server? it never caught
Hello,
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
---
UNDELIVERABLE MAIL
Your message to the following recipients cannot be
Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de) wrote:
Hello,
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
---
UNDELIVERABLE MAIL
Your
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de)
wrote:
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[10.11.12.253] [10.11.12.253]:
RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
501 5.1.3 Bad
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de)
wrote:
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[10.11.12.253] [10.11.12.253]:
RCPT TO:[EMAIL
Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Wietse Venema
Victor Duchovni:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the smtpd
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some of
those with 15000 users), so cant be
Gerardo Herzig wrote:
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some of
those with
Luigi Iotti:
I wonder if the machine is running something that slows down traffic
that looks suspicious to a data rate of 1 byte/s.
But the same behaviour is exhibited by two machines, connected to the
Internet by completely different carriers with different service agreements.
In the
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:16:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
I would not be surprised if there was some network rate limiting
feature that you inadvertantly turned on, and that limits the data
rate to 1 byte/second under some conditions.
This said, it is just one possibility, the truth will
James Brown wrote:
On 26/09/2008, at 1:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
James Brown:
Examining the headers of the email I sent to this list:
1. Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([127.0.0.1]
helo=[192.168.1.10]) by
...
3. Received: from mail.bordo.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
Try:
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost
Note, with the default
Kurt Buff wrote:
I don't believe sendmail was ever installed - IIRC, I selected to
install with no MTA.
Sep 25 15:18:20 loki sendmail[28707]: m8PMIKLT028707: from=kbuff,
size=795, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This line is logged by sendmail(TM).
Sep 25
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
Try:
mydestination =
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 23:36:44, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
...
It's kind of strange that you call it mutl-platform when it's redhat only.
...
iRedMail was ported from OpenBSD, but it is incompatibility now.
That's an odd porting philosophy.
The conventional
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Noel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kurt Buff wrote:
I don't believe sendmail was ever installed - IIRC, I selected to
install with no MTA.
Sep 25 15:18:20 loki sendmail[28707]: m8PMIKLT028707: from=kbuff,
size=795, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=[EMAIL
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:16:43 -0700
Kurt Buff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
clearly sendmail is installed and interfering.
OK - I'll fix that.
In order to completely disable sendmail, including the outgoing mail
service, you must use:
sendmail_enable=NO
sendmail_submit_enable=NO
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Duane Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain =
Rod Dorman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 23:36:44, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
...
It's kind of strange that you call it mutl-platform when it's
redhat only.
...
iRedMail was ported from OpenBSD, but it is incompatibility now.
That's an odd porting philosophy.
Dear list, this message was generated by the receiver postfix (2.2.1),
where the sender postfix was 2.3.2 from openSUSE 10.2. The receiver's
disk was temporarily full, which it announced correctly, but the sender
ignored it and continued to try to send. Is this normal behaviour or did
I
53 matches
Mail list logo
