Re: smtp relay and smtp verification

On Tuesday 27 January 2009, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, David Koski wrote: > > I did some testing with this in main.cf: > > > > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = > > ... > > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_access > > > > recipient_access: > > mytestdomain.com

Re: I am confused about my system's email addresses - need some help getting them to conform to my wishes

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Dave wrote: > > > Hopefully I have improved my question-asking now. :) > > You are confusing the role of the SMTP server and the IMAP client/server. > Several of your "problems" have little to do with Postfix. IMAP is

Re: smtp relay and smtp verification

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, David Koski wrote: > I did some testing with this in main.cf: > > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = > ... > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_access > > recipient_access: > mytestdomain.com reject_unverified_recipient > kosmosisland.com re

Re: I am confused about my system's email addresses - need some help getting them to conform to my wishes

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Dave wrote: > Hopefully I have improved my question-asking now. :) You are confusing the role of the SMTP server and the IMAP client/server. Several of your "problems" have little to do with Postfix. > Here's the first example of email addressing that I want to fix/modify. >

Re: smtp relay and smtp verification

On Thursday 20 March 2008, David Koski wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 22:53, MacShane, Tracy wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org > > > [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of David Koski > > > Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2008 2:

Re: Proper location of permit_mynetworks for mailman

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:15:44PM +0100, mouss wrote: > This is useless. at this stage, the domain is yours (other domains have > been rejected by the anti-relay control: reject_unauth_destination). Nevertheless, if I don't put permit_mynetworks in both smtpd_client_restrictions and smtpd_recipi

Re: Backscatter with forged return-path

mouss pisze: reject_unknown_helo_hostname would indeed be too aggressive. but you could use restriction classes and only call it if the sender is null (<>). or you could run aggressive checks if the client has a "generic" reverse dns. or in this particular case, simply reject *.rev.dynxnet.com

Re: Backscatter with forged return-path

Jim Wright pisze: On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Paweł Leśniak wrote: I may be wrong, but I think I should not block sender on helo basis? Most of what will be blocked are zombie systems that send no legitimate mail, a very small number of legitimate mails 'may' be blocked. It's a personal p

Re: Blocking Phishing emails

KLaM Postmaster a écrit : > Noel Jones wrote: >> Voytek Eymont wrote: >>> On Sat, January 24, 2009 1:39 am, Noel Jones wrote: >>> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org {a greylisting policy service} >>> >>> Noel, >>> >>> is that a good place to add

Re: how to filter

Munroe Sollog a écrit : > This is the only mailing-list that I can't seem to create a filter > (sieve) for. Posts are sent to so many different combinations of users, > two different domains, two different users, and either can exist in > either the TO: field or the CC: field. Is there a better e

Re: Postfix with AMAVISD how to white list

Jason Hirsh a écrit : > > On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:26 PM, mouss wrote: > >> Jason Hirsh a écrit : >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:04 PM, mouss wrote: >>> [snip] You probably want to ask on the amavisd list. but then give as much details as you can (whether you restarted amavisd-new, ... etc)

Re: Backscatter with forged return-path

Paweł Leśniak a écrit : > Jim Wright pisze: >>> Jan 26 13:05:42 mail postfix/policy-spf[2500]: : Policy >>> action=PREPEND Received-SPF: none (server.hipwah.com: No applicable >>> sender policy available) receiver=mail.example.com; identity=helo; >>> helo=SERVER.hipwah.com; client-ip=202.134.118.11

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Chris Babcock wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:41:32 -0800 (PST) > MountainX wrote: > > > The experts have already learned Postfix. As far as I am concerned, I > > can't add anything to the world by learning Postfix too. > > It isn't enough for email to just work.

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:41:32 -0800 (PST) MountainX wrote: > The experts have already learned Postfix. As far as I am concerned, I > can't add anything to the world by learning Postfix too. It isn't enough for email to just work. It has to work right. Imparting knowledge without understanding in

Re: how to filter

Le Tue 27/01/2009, Chris Babcock disait > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:48:43 +0100 > Erwan David wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:37:22PM CET, Tolga said: > > >>> or by the From: line > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> > > >>> /Tolga > > >>> > > >> > > >> Your own message proves this to

Re: how to filter

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:48:43 +0100 Erwan David wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:37:22PM CET, Tolga said: > >>> or by the From: line > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> /Tolga > >>> > >> > >> Your own message proves this to be incorrect: > >> > >> From: Tolga > >> > > > > > > :0 >

I am confused about my system's email addresses - need some help getting them to conform to my wishes

Hopefully I have improved my question-asking now. :) I'm using smtp.gmail.com with Postfix. It is working and all emails are delivered. All my config info is at the bottom of this message. The account I use to sign in to gmail is me-at-example.com (as shown in config below). I want to check my ema

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

MountainX wrote, at 01/27/2009 11:35 AM: > In my opinion, the opportunity for Linux to rise to greater heights starts Please get off your soapbox. If you have a question about Postfix, ask it. If you don't understand the answer and have more questions, ask them. If you want to say thanks, do so b

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

Stroller wrote: > > > On 27 Jan 2009, at 02:41, MountainX wrote: >> MacShane, Tracy wrote: >>> ... >>> Personally, I wonder why you're using Postfix at all if you're just >>> sending and receiving mail via Gmail. Postfix is a full-blown MTA, >>> so it >>> seems like a lot of overkill for mai

Re: 450 response being delivered to a sender is a mistake - isn't it?

Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:28:23AM -0500, KLaM Postmaster wrote: > > >> I was thinking about something I wrote here a couple of days ago. A 450 >> mistake - isn't it? >> Everything I have read to date seems to indicate that 4xx codes are >> temporary conditions between S

Re: Multiple relay_recipient_maps Makefile

Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:56:36AM -0500, Matt Hayes wrote: > >> It was suggested that to bring the number of map queries down on my >> server to shove them into a Makefile and create one recipient map. > > How may do you have? Generally, 1 vs 2 or 3 is not compelling if

Re: Postfix with AMAVISD how to white list

On 26 Jan 2009, at 21:11, Jason Hirsh wrote: ... PS. It is a bad idea to bounce mail that was queued by postfix. This causes backscatter (and you may be blacklisted...) I am confused by this comment.. do you mean I shouldn't let amavisd do any bouncing?? it handles all of my spam, content a

Re: Bounces.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Linux Addict wrote: I dont know if its convincing to send mails to a host where no smtp is running(hence no MX record) but is there anyway at all in Postfix to check for MX record before the qmgr accepts the mail? Why do you think no MX record implies no SMTP running? The

Re: Multiple relay_recipient_maps Makefile

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:56:36AM -0500, Matt Hayes wrote: > It was suggested that to bring the number of map queries down on my > server to shove them into a Makefile and create one recipient map. How may do you have? Generally, 1 vs 2 or 3 is not compelling if it is easier to define and unders

Re: 450 response being delivered to a sender is a mistake - isn't it?

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:28:23AM -0500, KLaM Postmaster wrote: > I was thinking about something I wrote here a couple of days ago. A 450 > response from my server being delivered to the original sender is a > mistake - isn't it? > Everything I have read to date seems to indicate that 4xx codes a

Re: Bounces.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:52:30AM -0500, Linux Addict wrote: >> The Internet email RFCs do not require MX records. They specify >> that the MTA must deliver by A records when MX records don't exist. > > I dont know if its convincing to send mails to a host where no smtp is > running(hence no MX

Re: Bounces.

On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Linux Addict wrote: Wietse Venema wrote: Linux Addict: What I would like to do is, if a destination host does not have an MX record, then I would like to drop the message, don't want to bounce it. The Internet email RFCs do not require MX records. They speci

Multiple relay_recipient_maps Makefile

It was suggested that to bring the number of map queries down on my server to shove them into a Makefile and create one recipient map. Basic research turns up some good information, but wanted to check with the list on anyone else that has done this and how they went about getting the Makefile bui

Re: Bounces.

Wietse Venema wrote: Linux Addict: What I would like to do is, if a destination host does not have an MX record, then I would like to drop the message, don't want to bounce it. The Internet email RFCs do not require MX records. They specify that the MTA must deliver by A records when M

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

On 27 Jan 2009, at 02:41, MountainX wrote: MacShane, Tracy wrote: ... Personally, I wonder why you're using Postfix at all if you're just sending and receiving mail via Gmail. Postfix is a full-blown MTA, so it seems like a lot of overkill for mail you could collect via IMAP/ POP using the

450 response being delivered to a sender is a mistake - isn't it?

I was thinking about something I wrote here a couple of days ago. A 450 response from my server being delivered to the original sender is a mistake - isn't it? Everything I have read to date seems to indicate that 4xx codes are temporary conditions between SMTP endpoints. But as I am new to this I

Re: Bounces.

Linux Addict: > What I would like to do is, if a destination host does not have > an MX record, then I would like to drop the message, don't want > to bounce it. The Internet email RFCs do not require MX records. They specify that the MTA must deliver by A records when MX records don't exist.

Re: Bounces.

Magnus Bäck wrote: On Monday, January 26, 2009 at 23:39 CET, Linux Addict wrote: I am seeing multiple messages on Postfix Maillog. The mx server cant reach the host in question and its timing out. We monitor the mailq size and because of 100 of messages like this, we are bombarded with

Re: Query on POSTMAP

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 06:42:45PM +0530, Goutam Baul wrote: > accountStatus: enable > mail: bo...@rpg.in > > The content of the /etc/postfix/maps.ldap is > > query_filter = (&(mail=%s) (accountStatus=active)) Your LDAP server is not a native English speaker and fails to recognize the semantic

Re: how to filter

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:37:22PM CET, Tolga said: > > > Jorey Bump yazmış: >> Tolga wrote, at 01/27/2009 08:19 AM: >> >>> Heiko Wundram yazmış: >>> I filter on the header List-Post: which catches everything (AFAICT) that comes i

Re: Problem with non-delivery notifications and smtpd_recipient_restrictions

On 1/27/09 7:05 AM, Cédric Laruelle at laruel...@aiderdonner.com wrote: > I want to prevent the local users to send emails to a certain domain, let¹s > say baddomain.com > > In order to do that, I set > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = > permit_mynetworks > permit_sasl_authenticated

Re: how to filter

Jorey Bump yazmış: Tolga wrote, at 01/27/2009 08:19 AM: Heiko Wundram yazmış: I filter on the header List-Post: which catches everything (AFAICT) that comes in over the list. or by the From: line Regards, /Tolga Your own message

Re: how to filter

Munroe Sollog escribió: This is the only mailing-list that I can't seem to create a filter (sieve) for. Posts are sent to so many different combinations of users, two different domains, two different users, and either can exist in either the TO: field or the CC: field. Is there a better element

Re: how to filter

Tolga wrote, at 01/27/2009 08:19 AM: > > Heiko Wundram yazmış: >> >> I filter on the header >> >> List-Post: >> >> which catches everything (AFAICT) that comes in over the list. >> > or by the From: line > > Regards, > > /Tolga Your own message proves this

RE: Problem with non-delivery notifications and smtpd_recipient_restrictions

Nevermind, there actually was a non delivery notification but I didn’t see it ! Best regards, Cédric Laruelle De : owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] De la part de Cédric Laruelle Envoyé : mardi 27 janvier 2009 14:06 À : postfix-users@postfix.org Obje

Re: how to filter

Heiko Wundram yazmış: Am Tuesday 27 January 2009 13:08:18 schrieb Munroe Sollog: This is the only mailing-list that I can't seem to create a filter (sieve) for. Posts are sent to so many different combinations of users, two different domains, two different users, and either can exist in ei

Query on POSTMAP

Dear List, I am using RHEL4 with postfix 2.2.10-1 and openldap 2.2.13-6. I have created the ldap tree where I can search for the mail-id and get result: ldapsearch -x mail=bo...@rpg.in responds as # extended LDIF # # LDAPv3 # base <> with scope sub # filter: mail=bo...@rpg.in # requesting: ALL

Problem with non-delivery notifications and smtpd_recipient_restrictions

Hi, I want to prevent the local users to send emails to a certain domain, let’s say baddomain.com In order to do that, I set smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_sasl_authenticated reject_unauth_destination check_recipient_access hash:/etc/

Re: Postfix with AMAVISD how to white list

On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:26 PM, mouss wrote: Jason Hirsh a écrit : On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:04 PM, mouss wrote: [snip] You probably want to ask on the amavisd list. but then give as much details as you can (whether you restarted amavisd-new, ... etc). I was told I should behere but all teh disc

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > MountainX: >> Like many other people today, I am aware of important environmental issues, >> the breakdown of the health care system, the huge political changes taken >> place now, the financial crisis, and other events that will have a huge

Re: how to filter

Am Tuesday 27 January 2009 13:08:18 schrieb Munroe Sollog: > This is the only mailing-list that I can't seem to create a filter > (sieve) for. Posts are sent to so many different combinations of users, > two different domains, two different users, and either can exist in > either the TO: field or

how to filter

This is the only mailing-list that I can't seem to create a filter (sieve) for. Posts are sent to so many different combinations of users, two different domains, two different users, and either can exist in either the TO: field or the CC: field. Is there a better element to filter on? I find it

Re: I thought I had a send-only Postfix server, but I see someone connected to it!

MountainX: > Like many other people today, I am aware of important environmental issues, > the breakdown of the health care system, the huge political changes taken > place now, the financial crisis, and other events that will have a huge > impact on our children and subsequent generations. I canno

Re: Forwarding if no local mailbox

Hi, Noel Jones wrote: > Lothar Braun wrote: >> What I'm trying to do now is: Accept mails for @mydomain.tld on the new >> server and try to deliver them to the local accounts. If that fails, >> send it out to the old server and try to deliver it there. >> >> I had a look at the documentation but c