Hi
http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
RULE: /X-Virus-Scanned/ REPLACE X-Virus-Scanned: Yes
BEFORE: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at testserver.rhsoft.net
NOW:X-Virus-Scanned: Yes
so far, so nice
_
but in case of X-Spam-Status i am out
On 08/11/2014 01:00 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Hi
http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
RULE: /X-Virus-Scanned/ REPLACE X-Virus-Scanned: Yes
BEFORE: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at testserver.rhsoft.net
NOW:X-Virus-Scanned: Yes
so far, so nice
Why don't you simply configure SpamAssassin to not put the version
number in the header to begin with?
You can use directives like clear_headers, add_headers in your local.cf
configuration file to configure these.
For instance I have these two lines in my local.cf:
clear_headers
add_header all
thanks looks good
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham
autolearn_force=no
no idea wher the UNPARSEABLE_RELAY comes from and how to disable it :-(
however, i am still interested in REPLACE just for things
like /192\.168\.196\./ REPLACE /84\.113\.92\./
Well, this isn't really the right list to discuss SpamAssassin, but a
short reply then:
The UNPARSEABLE_RELAY isn't really a spam-test, but it there to warn you
that your email has one or more Received: lines that cannot be parsed.
Maybe you have accidentally mangled a Received: line with those
Hi,
you already did this, but I'll point you to the correct chapter anyway:
RTFM :)
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#scoring_options
You could probably do everything you want with REPLACE and
backreferences in the regular expressions too, but why
Am 11.08.2014 um 14:10 schrieb Erik Logtenberg:
Well, this isn't really the right list to discuss SpamAssassin, but a
short reply then:
The UNPARSEABLE_RELAY isn't really a spam-test
i know
but it there to warn you that your email has one or more
Received: lines that cannot be parsed
Am 11.08.2014 um 14:12 schrieb Tom Hendrikx:
You're too experienced (and large-mouthed :) to not know that security
cannot be obtained through obscurity. Header munging is almost always
the wrong solution
that don't change the fact that security auditors are happy
if you don't leak internal
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:26:21PM -0500, Karol Pomaski wrote:
I was trying to use my content_filter to create the vacation engine for
my users. It works as a content_filter but only if the emails are coming
from outside. I am trying to enable the vacation script to work also for
local
Am 11.08.2014 um 16:19 schrieb Alexander Farber:
Dear postfix users,
here is what I'm trying at my CentOS 6.5 Linux server
please make a decision if you would like to have that topic
on the CenOS list, on the postfix list or on serverfault
which you linked at the same message to the CentOS
Greetings!
I have 3 servers connected via lan vpn.
SERVER-1 is a hosted VM in the cloud
EXTIF eth0 (198.51.100.1, 198.51.100.2, 10.0.1.1)
TUNIF tun1 (192.168.1.1)
SERVER-2 is my LAN's router/firewall
EXTIF eth0 (203.0.113.1)
TUNIF tun1 (192.168.1.2)
INTIF eth1 (10.0.2.1,
On 8/11/2014 11:04 AM, terrygalant.li...@fastest.cc wrote:
Greetings!
I have 3 servers connected via lan vpn.
SERVER-1 is a hosted VM in the cloud
EXTIF eth0 (198.51.100.1, 198.51.100.2, 10.0.1.1)
TUNIF tun1 (192.168.1.1)
SERVER-2 is my LAN's router/firewall
EXTIF eth0
On 8/10/2014 8:21 PM, John Mancuso wrote:
I'm testing out rate control using the smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
parameter. I'm successfully able to relay mail through this server however I
do not see any mention of anvil in the logs when I send out mails
smtpd_client_message_rate_limit.
Hi Noel
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014, at 09:11 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
proxy_interfaces should list any external IPs that *this* postfix is
connected to on the other side of a NAT. Any IPs that are not
local on this box that connect to postfix should be listed here.
By 'connect' you do mean 'reponds
On 8/11/2014 11:19 AM, terrygalant.li...@fastest.cc wrote:
Hi Noel
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014, at 09:11 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
proxy_interfaces should list any external IPs that *this* postfix is
connected to on the other side of a NAT. Any IPs that are not
local on this box that connect to
Perfect, thanks!
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014, at 09:26 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
Yes, that sounds right.
Hi Folks,
This is mostly a matter of curiosity - but not entirely (I'm rethinking
the high availability strategy for a small cluster):
If a machine crashes while postfix is processing a message - but the
disks are not corrupted - what happens to the message being processed?
I.e., what
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:01:46PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
If a machine crashes while postfix is processing a message - but the disks
are not corrupted - what happens to the message being processed?
Messages that Postfix accepted responsibility for (accepted into
its queue) are not lost.
On 8/11/2014 1:01 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
This is mostly a matter of curiosity - but not entirely (I'm
rethinking the high availability strategy for a small cluster):
If a machine crashes while postfix is processing a message - but the
disks are not corrupted - what happens to
Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/11/2014 1:01 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
This is mostly a matter of curiosity - but not entirely (I'm
rethinking the high availability strategy for a small cluster):
If a machine crashes while postfix is processing a message - but the
disks are not corrupted -
Hi,
I have a fedora20 system with postfix-2.10.3 and have TLS set up and
working correctly, at least to the best of my ability. We have a user that
would like to send email to a system that apparently doesn't support TLS,
but does support SSL. I'd imagine they are referring to SSLv3.
I'm not
On 8/11/2014 2:23 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/11/2014 1:01 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
This is mostly a matter of curiosity - but not entirely (I'm
rethinking the high availability strategy for a small cluster):
If a machine crashes while postfix is processing
Am 11.08.2014 um 22:01 schrieb Alex:
I have a fedora20 system with postfix-2.10.3 and have TLS set up and working
correctly, at least to the best of my
ability. We have a user that would like to send email to a system that
apparently doesn't support TLS, but does
support SSL. I'd imagine
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 04:01:56PM -0400, Alex wrote:
I have a fedora20 system with postfix-2.10.3 and have TLS set up and
working correctly, at least to the best of my ability. We have a user that
would like to send email to a system that apparently doesn't support TLS,
but does support SSL.
On 8/11/2014 3:01 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have a fedora20 system with postfix-2.10.3 and have TLS set up and
working correctly, at least to the best of my ability. We have a
user that would like to send email to a system that apparently
doesn't support TLS, but does support SSL. I'd imagine
Hi,
I have a fedora20 system with postfix-2.10.3 and have TLS set up and
working correctly, at least to the best of my ability. We have a user
that
would like to send email to a system that apparently doesn't support
TLS,
but does support SSL. I'd imagine they are referring to SSLv3.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:25:50PM -0400, Alex wrote:
Yes, though if you make SSL/TLS mandatory (via smtp_tls_policy_maps
and the encrypt or secure levels) then some weaker ciphers are
excluded by default.
Okay, just to be sure I understand this correctly, I need to still
configure my
On 11 Aug 2014, at 10:22, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 11.08.2014 um 16:19 schrieb Alexander Farber:
Dear postfix users,
here is what I'm trying at my CentOS 6.5 Linux server
please make a decision if you would like to have that topic
on the CenOS list, on the postfix list or on serverfault
Hi,
Let's talk about one thing at a time. What problem is your user
reporting?
* An inability to use your server as a submission server, that is,
to use an MUA like Outlook with your server as its SMTP server?
Or
* An inability to route mail to some remote system via your
First of all let me say I'm brand new to this and maybe actually have this
but have a million questions.
I am running Linux Mint 17
I have installed postfix and dovecot
my hostname is mail.hagensieker.com
Locally everything seems fine. I can telnet to 25 and connect and read
local mail from user
Are your ports open?
http://www.portchecktool.com/
On 08/11/2014 08:02 PM, hagensieker wrote:
First of all let me say I'm brand new to this and maybe actually have this
but have a million questions.
I am running Linux Mint 17
I have installed postfix and dovecot
my hostname is
I'll check that when I get home. Thanks. I do believe it is a port issue
because I can send but not receive.
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Lots-of-Post-Fix-Issues-tp69856p69858.html
Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 08:09:02PM -0400, Alex wrote:
To support Outlook as an SSL/TLS submission client, you need to
setup the smtps (input) wrapper-mode service as described in
TLS_README. Outlook indeed does not support TLS (that is
STARTTLS) and only supports SSL encapsulated SMTP on
It shows my ports 25, 143, 587 open.
I can do sendmail someemailaddress.com and it sends outside. The config
that Thunderbird found is only working outbound. Still not inbound. Again
I think it is a port. The test says 25 is working however when I switch to
an outside network and go (telnet
And here is /var/log/mail.log
One of these is a successful send and the other I believe the failed inbound
Aug 12 14:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[6849]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1]
Aug 12 14:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[6849]: 9ACDA440C86:
client=localhost[127.0.0.1]
Aug 12 14:07:16 mail
And here is dovecot.conf
## Dovecot configuration file
# If you're in a hurry, see http://wiki2.dovecot.org/QuickConfiguration
# doveconf -n command gives a clean output of the changed settings. Use it
# instead of copypasting files when posting to the Dovecot mailing list.
# '#' character
36 matches
Mail list logo
