I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
[postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
Looks as if you've found the problem.
Make sure your master.cf has an entry like:
dnsblog unix - -
!-- On Sun 1.Sep'13 at 9:52:50 BST, Grant (emailgr...@gmail.com), wrote:
I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
[postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
Looks as if you've found the
I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
[postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
Looks as if you've found the problem.
Make sure your master.cf has an entry like:
dnsblog unix -
Grant:
I'm on Gentoo and I use the etc-update script to update config files
after upgrading. Should dnsblog be uncommented in a default
master.cf? If so I may need to file a Gentoo bug.
As distributed by me, the 'inet' smtpd service is active, and all
postscreen-related services are
Grant:
I'm on Gentoo and I use the etc-update script to update config files
after upgrading. Should dnsblog be uncommented in a default
master.cf? If so I may need to file a Gentoo bug.
As distributed by me, the 'inet' smtpd service is active, and all
postscreen-related services are
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
to be used to send email from my mail server. But it is not working, it
seems to still just be allowing all From: addresses. Here is the output of
what happened:
main.cf
myhostname = xxx.yyy.com
alias_maps =
Hi all,
On 2013-09-01 6:09 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks James. This is all very cool. A blacklist (zen.spamhaus.org),
a whitelist (list.dnswl.org), and a greylist. 2.11 looks to be a
fantastic release for easily-configured anti-spam measures. I'm just
not getting spam
On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 07:32:57 -0700, warpspasm wrote:
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
to be used to send email from my mail server. But it is not working, it
seems to still just be allowing all From: addresses. Here is the output of
what happened:
Charles Marcus:
If postfix is good enough now with the addition of postscreen to block
95+% of spam, maybe it is time to do away with the hassle of 3rd party
anti-spam tools.
Important:
1) postscreen decides if the SMTP client is a spammer.
It makes these decisions without receiving
warpspasm:
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E481: uid=33
This mail is not received via the SMTP server.
On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 11:09:33 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
[ .. ]
Instead, try:
# main.cf
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/listed_senders, reject
To be clear, this will not help in your test case (but rather, only when
mail is received via smtpd) as Wietse points out.
--
Sahil
I'm writing a Ruby on Rails app that uses the mailman and fssm gems to monitor
the appropriate Maildir/new. There are virtual mailboxes and subdomains
involved, but nonetheless, Postfix properly delivers incoming mail to the
correct subdirectory. Fssm alerts mailman when a new email is
Warren H. Prince:
My problem is that after mailman grabs the email, some postfix
process kicks off that attempts to communicate with the original
mail server that sent the email. That communication results in a
forwarding loop and a bounced email warning. I can't seem to
figure out what
On 01 Sep 2013, at 08:51 , Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
Everyone else - I'm very curious how many people are relying solely on
postfix/postcreen settings for their anti-spam measures, and how effective
they seem to be as compared to other anti-spam measures - ie, using
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E481: uid=33
This mail is not received via
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:59:38PM +0200, Peer Heinlein wrote:
For using ECDHE (perfect forward secrecy) it's necessary to define two
files with DH-primes:
root@mx2:~# postconf | grep dh_
smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file = /etc/postfix/dh_1024.pem
smtpd_tls_dh512_param_file =
warpspasm:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E481: uid=33
This
I'm hoping someone on here can maybe point me in the right direction.
I'm trying to simply pipe all incoming email to a perl script that then
dumps back to postfix to deliver. Pipes in by STDIN and then hands it
back via STDOUT.
This is the script.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce Markey wrote:
I'm hoping someone on here can maybe point me in the right direction.
I'm trying to simply pipe all incoming email to a perl script that
then dumps back to postfix to deliver. Pipes in by STDIN and then
hands it back via
On 8/31/2013 6:40 PM, LuKreme wrote:
When you change your main.cf so that AUTH is not allowed on port 25,
then additional settings are required in master.cf/submission to
insure you don't reject AUTH users.
Ah... um.. let me see if I have this straight then. I do not have sasl
settings
Viktor
Thank you. I'm glad I asked before I spent any more time trying to make this
work.
I'll look at modifying the actual script for now.
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce Markey wrote:
I'm hoping someone on here can maybe
Le 01/09/2013 21:55, Bruce Markey a écrit :
Viktor
Thank you. I'm glad I asked before I spent any more time trying to
make this work.
I'll look at modifying the actual script for now.
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce
I am getting the message below when trying to send out mail. I just
wanted to confirm this doesn't have to do with me. Correct me if I am
wrong, it is the target mailbox gmail is not happy about and not me.
host ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com[74.125.136.27] said: 450-4.2.1 The user
you are trying to
I am not sure I understand this. Isn't every message a separate connection?
If what it means to say is I have exceeded a quota for sending out
emails per time period, what is there to do about it?
Thanks in advance
My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves fine
here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the firewall
over to a different provider. Naturally, the mail server will now be
bound to a public ip B. What do I do if I want correct PTR querry
response?
Thanks in
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
Subject: HELO
What does HELO have to do with this?
My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves
fine here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the
firewall over to a different provider. Naturally,
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:12:28PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I am getting the message below when trying to send out mail. I
just wanted to confirm this doesn't have to do with me. Correct
me if I am wrong, it is the target mailbox gmail is not happy
about and not me.
host
On 9/1/2013 3:30 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves fine
here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the firewall
over to a different provider. Naturally, the mail server will now be
bound to a public ip B. What do I do if I
On 9/1/2013 3:20 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I am not sure I understand this. Isn't every message a separate connection?
If what it means to say is I have exceeded a quota for sending out
emails per time period, what is there to do about it?
Thanks in advance
Postfix can reuse a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folks, sorry this isn't threading: I subscribed to this list to post
after being pointed by Viktor at:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2013-09/0003.html
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2013-09/0015.html
For
I will keep my anaswer short.
First, the primary mission of Postfix is to deliver mail, not to
force someone into adopting a particular world view. I have asked
Viktor what patch would restore interoperability.
Second, we have to be mindful that Postfix and Exim are not the
only MTAs in
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:02:00PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
I will keep my anaswer short.
First, the primary mission of Postfix is to deliver mail, not to
force someone into adopting a particular world view. I have asked
Viktor what patch would restore interoperability.
Second, we
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:12:28PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
host ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com[74.125.136.27] said: 450-4.2.1 The user
you are trying to contact is receiving mail at a rate that 450-4.2.1
prevents additional messages from being delivered
The user is receiving too much mail, there
I didn't want to post it due to it's length, but here goes:
On Sep 1, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Warren H. Prince:
My problem is that after mailman grabs the email, some postfix
process kicks off that attempts to communicate with the original
mail server
So, I checked the destination email address and I found this
n...@none.com. I guess it becomes pretty obvious, now, why this
mailbox is busy. BTW... there was only one attempt to send to this
destination.
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Sun,
I didn't want to post such a large log, but here goes. The first line is where
the message is actually moved to MailDir (it's desired location). The entries
after that result after the email is moved from Maildir/new to Maildir/Cur:
Sep 1 23:44:07 production postfix/local[10458]:
On every machine, at different locations, I have tried dig -x ip
address and it works correctly.
I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
very thing that works.
refused to talk to me: 451 Sender's ISP has no reverse DNS for ip address
Can somebody tell me what is
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
mail.example.com A B.B.B.B
Won't this cause a problem with the MX
On 9/1/2013 6:52 PM, Warren H. Prince wrote:
I didn't want to post such a large log, but here goes. The first line is
where the message is actually moved to MailDir (it's desired location). The
entries after that result after the email is moved from Maildir/new to
Maildir/Cur:
Sep 1
On 9/1/2013 6:57 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
On every machine, at different locations, I have tried dig -x ip
address and it works correctly.
I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
very thing that works.
refused to talk to me: 451 Sender's ISP has no reverse DNS
You could assume this server will never be used as incoming server.
From: LuKreme
Sent: 9/1/2013 8:05 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org postfix
Subject: Re: HELO
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
On 9/1/2013 7:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
mail.example.com A B.B.B.B
On 09/02/2013 12:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org
wrote:
If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
mail.example.com A
On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
localhost[127.0.0.1]
SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
postfix.
I'm not blaming postfix, but postfix is my only source
On 09/02/2013 12:11 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/1/2013 6:57 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
On every machine, at different locations, I have tried dig -x ip
address and it works correctly.
I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
very thing that works.
refused to talk to
Warren H. Prince:
On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
localhost[127.0.0.1]
SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
postfix.
I'm not blaming postfix,
On 9/1/2013 7:28 PM, Warren H. Prince wrote:
On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
localhost[127.0.0.1]
SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
postfix.
I'm not
But these emails ultimately do get sent out. It could take a long time.
To me it sounds odd that they don't know their DNS lookups are screwed
up. And if they do know, why are they placing such strict constraints
on incoming mail.
From: Peter
Sent: 9/1/2013 8:32 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 11:11:12PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
This problem has just now been reported for the first time, perhaps
because someone updated GnuTLS to a recent version that exhibits
this behaviour. I think the right place for the fix is in GnuTLS
or applications that use it.
Also take a look at the following settings in the postconf docs:
default_destination_recipient_limit
default_destination_concurrency_limit
initial_destination_concurrency
queue_run_delay
Their importance to you (in my opinion) are listed in order, the first
setting I listed is what is most
On 09/01/2013 08:47 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
But these emails ultimately do get sent out. It could take a long time.
To me it sounds odd that they don't know their DNS lookups are screwed
up. And if they do know, why are they placing such strict constraints
on incoming mail.
Usually there are
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]:
warpspasm:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:30:35PM -0700, warpspasm wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
Wietse Venema wrote
warpspasm:
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one
From: address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the
SMTP server.
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:25:02AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
If Peer Heinlein would be kind enough to post
the Exim version that exhibits the problem and any relevant settings,
that would help narrow down the problem.
Also the version of GnuTLS with which Exim is linked.
--
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:00:38PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:30:35PM -0700, warpspasm wrote:
I would like to be able to have a postfix server that only
allows outgoing emails from one From: address.
Any ideas? Thanks
Sure. As alluded above, that goal is
56 matches
Mail list logo
