Hi,
I want to catch if a message is signed and if change the destination.
Is this possible within postfix ?
Regards
Peter Sørensen/Univ Of Sothern Denmark/email: mas...@sdu.dk
Peter S?rensen:
> Hi,
>
> I want to catch if a message is signed and if change the destination.
> Is this possible within postfix ?
This question is too vague. Do you want to change an envelope
recipient address (what if one message has multiple recipients?)
or the next MTA (what if one message h
I understand a server announcing XFORWARD is ready to accept session META data
acquired from another client, but I don't understand where XCLIENT fits in.
>From my understanding a typical XFORWARD situation would be data (IP, hostname
etc.) from client that talked to Postfix is passed by Postfix t
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> I understand a server announcing XFORWARD is ready to accept session META data
> acquired from another client, but I don't understand where XCLIENT fits in.
XFORWARD is for LOGGING - it does not change POSTFIX access policy.
XCLIENT is for IMPERSONATION - it does change POS
Wietse Venema:
> The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
> conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
> connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
> has delivered the DNSBL score to the "pseudo" threads for those M
> con
Hello All members,
get thousands of emails per day, and am having some problems, postfix
says the message was made transportation, not only that your recipient
receives the message, and no entry in the logs is displayed on the
destination server, above logs of my frontend server with antispam
Rafael Andrade:
> Oct 6 10:33:48 mta01 postfix/smtp[2182]: CD4BD249BA:
> to=, relay=189.85.66.6[189.85.66.6]:25,
> delay=0.41, delays=0.15/0/0/0.25, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok:
> queued as EF7011757C3)
The message was queued on the server at 189.85.66.6, with queue ID
EF7011757C3.
>
On 10/7/2010 9:21 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
>> conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
>> connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
>> has delivered the DNSB
Good point ! You're right.
The problem I am about to solve is that we to accept encryptet mail to
a specific mailbox and this has to be decryptet before we scan for VIRUS/SPAM
A server will be dedicatet for the decrypting/encrypting purpose. This is
outside
our MTA so my downstram postfix will
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 09:21 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
> > conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
> > connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
> > has d
* Vernon A. Fort :
> Thanks Wietse - installed and running.
Same here.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
ralf.h
Peter S?rensen:
> Good point ! You're right.
>
> The problem I am about to solve is that we to accept encryptet
> mail to a specific mailbox and this has to be decryptet before we
> scan for VIRUS/SPAM
>
> A server will be dedicatet for the decrypting/encrypting purpose.
> This is outside our MTA
Hello List,
I want to rebuild my complete postfix setup, because requirements have
changed for it...
By now the server is just relaying to servers behind it, and all users
get checked by reject_unverified_recipients, and then routet to the
backend servers by a transport entry in mysql. The Do
Apparently sorbs.net is having issues with accidentally adding loads of
static IP addresses to their dynamic IP's list.
If you use them you might want to stick a "warn_if_reject" in front of
the reference until the matter is resolved.
--
r...@polylogics.com "The avalanche has already started
Zitat von Peter Sørensen :
Good point ! You're right.
The problem I am about to solve is that we to accept encryptet mail to
a specific mailbox and this has to be decryptet before we scan for VIRUS/SPAM
A server will be dedicatet for the decrypting/encrypting purpose.
This is outside
our MTA
I noticed that problem when using safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net. I removed it and added
the following to solve the problem;
http.dnsbl.sorbs.net - List of Open HTTP Proxy Servers.
socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net - List of Open SOCKS Proxy Servers.
misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net - List of open Proxy Servers not listed i
Is it possible to duplicate mail into a new queue (such as my existing "defer"
queue)
so that I could trigger the delivery of that mail again to the intended mailbox
server
it was originally headed to as defined in my transports file?
Thanks!
jlc
On 10/07/2010 09:30 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
Is it possible to duplicate mail into a new queue (such as my existing "defer"
queue)
That makes absolutely zero sense.
In case you were under the impression that queues somehow had something
to do with delivery paths - they don't.
so tha
Joseph L. Casale:
> Is it possible to duplicate mail into a new queue (such as my
> existing "defer" queue) so that I could trigger the delivery of
> that mail again to the intended mailbox server it was originally
> headed to as defined in my transports file?
Please describe the problem that you
>Please describe the problem that you are trying to solve, instead
>of the solution that you have come up with (queue duplication).
Sorry guys, just trying to be brief. I have an unrelated issue with other
software whereby a rollback this weekend will likely take place on the
mailbox server (clien
Joseph L. Casale:
> >Please describe the problem that you are trying to solve, instead
> >of the solution that you have come up with (queue duplication).
>
> Sorry guys, just trying to be brief. I have an unrelated issue with other
> software whereby a rollback this weekend will likely take place
On 2010-10-07 3:43 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> My Postfix gateway will be receiving inbound mail and unfortunately I
> don't have the option this time to change DNS entries and some of the
> maintenance will require receiving mail for this domain.
>
> Normally, whenever we do maintenance, we edi
>What is the problem? Your gateway server forwards mail to the
>mailbox server as usual, but then the mailbox server is "reset" to
>some earlier checkpoint, causing all mail to be lost that was
>delivered since that earlier checkpoint. The mail is no longer on
>your gateway server, so there is no
>If I'm reading this right, I *think* you can just set your postfix
>gateway to hold all mails by adding "static:HOLD" to the TOP of your
>smtpd_sender_restrictions:
>
>smtpd_sender_restrictions = static:HOLD, blah, blah
>
>Then once your mailbox server is back up, comment out that line and then
>i
On 2010-10-07 4:33 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> When I apply for an SSL cert on the weekend and the SSL company uses
> the WHOIS DB to send a confirmation email to me, how do I get my cert
> _this weekend_ to have that stage of my maintenance completed? The
> conf mail will have bounced?
Get the
Joseph L. Casale:
> Ok, so I can stop mail at the firewall. When I apply for an SSL cert on the
> weekend and the SSL company uses the WHOIS DB to send a confirmation
> email to me, how do I get my cert _this weekend_ to have that stage of
> my maintenance completed? The conf mail will have bounced
>Get the SSL cert BEFORE you take your server down?
Lol, I can't, no way to make a CSR as its being upgraded, plus
I have customer mail to address...
Trust me, it's the simplest approach given all my conditions:)
jlc
>The idea is that you ***QUEUE*** the mail for the mailbox server
>on the gateway. The default postfix maximal_queue_lifetime setting
>of five days should be sufficient to survive a weekend outage of
>the mailbox server.
This is what I normally do during maint.
>> If I roll back the mailbox serve
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:09:49PM +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> >2) If you do ***QUEUE*** the mail on the gateway, then all you need
> >to do is turn on the flow to the mailbox server when you're done,
> >and Postfix will deliver it to the mailbox server.
>
> hence why I wanted to duplicate t
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:09:49PM +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>
> > >2) If you do ***QUEUE*** the mail on the gateway, then all you need
> > >to do is turn on the flow to the mailbox server when you're done,
> > >and Postfix will deliver it to the mailbox server.
> >
> > he
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > If you need to read mail for several mailboxes during the down-time, bcc
> > a copy of the mail for just those recipients to an alternate location,
> > which will not be down. All other mail can queue for the usual destination
> >
>> If you need to read mail for several mailboxes during the down-time, bcc
>> a copy of the mail for just those recipients to an alternate location,
>> which will not be down. All other mail can queue for the usual destination
>> to be back up.
>
>/etc/postfix/main.cf:
> sender_bcc_maps = hash:/
>Perhaps, "recipient_bcc_maps", rather than "sender_bcc_maps", but the
>idea is the same.
Yup, I'll just deal with it all in one mb, I am so pressed for time, I don't
have
the luxury of creating the maps:)
Thanks a lot guys!
jlc
Le 06/10/2010 00:37, Noel Butler a écrit :
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:46 +0200, mouss wrote:
Le 04/10/2010 23:03, Terry Gilsenan a écrit :
Configure postfix to use SPF, and setup an SPF record in DNS for
that domain.
then what? you reject mail because of spf fail? that would lead to
false p
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 00:24 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Le 06/10/2010 00:37, Noel Butler a écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:46 +0200, mouss wrote:
> >
> > > Le 04/10/2010 23:03, Terry Gilsenan a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Configure postfix to use SPF, and setup an SPF record in DNS for
> > > > tha
Noel Butler:
> > if you're in this list for some time, you probably know that spf
> > debates are taboo here. Please accept my apologies for my post (I
> > didn't realise that I was putting my foot in that old hole!).
>
> I doubt July this year constitutes a long time , I was temp sub'd a
> year
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 20:37 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Noel Butler:
> > > if you're in this list for some time, you probably know that spf
> > > debates are taboo here. Please accept my apologies for my post (I
> > > didn't realise that I was putting my foot in that old hole!).
> >
> > I doub
37 matches
Mail list logo
