Am 16.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:28:11PM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
# block windows executables PCRE
/^\s*Content-(?:Disposition|Type): # Header label
(?:.*?;)? \s* # Any prior
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
When you follow the include: directives you get lists of net/mask
forms that are easy to convert to postscreen.
$ host -t txt spf1.amazon.com | tr ' ' '\12' | sed -n '/^ip.:/{
s/^ip.:\(.*\)/\1 permit/
There's an RFC for Email Authentication Status Codes
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7372.txt out, which specifies a dedicated
status code when an SMTP client's IP address failed a reverse DNS validation
check, contrary to local policy requirements (see: 3.3. Reverse DNS Failure
Code):
3.3.
Am 17.09.2014 um 10:02 schrieb Christian Rößner
c...@roessner-network-solutions.com:
/xREJECT blocked filename ${1}
Missing indention here. Got it. Thanks
Christian
--
Bachelor of Science Informatik
Erlenwiese 14, 36304 Alsfeld
T: +49 6631 78823400, F: +49 6631 78823409,
Am 17.09.2014 um 11:28 schrieb Christian Rößner:
Am 17.09.2014 um 10:02 schrieb Christian Rößner
c...@roessner-network-solutions.com:
/x REJECT blocked filename ${1}
Missing indention here. Got it. Thanks
i attached once again my final (appearing to work)
config file -
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:33:43 li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
that still too much mail admins sadly don't care about 3 things
* A record
* PTR
* HELO name
and instead reject_unknown_hostname you need for a sane sleep
specific rules to at least reject insane HELO :-(
thank you for
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 00:31:48 LuKreme wrote:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 15:24 , AndreaML andre...@z80.it wrote:
Sep 16 06:42:00 server1 postfix/smtpd[4257]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
wr001msr.fastwebnet.it[85.18.95.77]: 450 4.7.1 wr001msr.intranet.fw:
Helo command rejected: Host not
Am 17.09.2014 um 11:37 schrieb AndreaML:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 23:33:43 li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
that still too much mail admins sadly don't care about 3 things
* A record
* PTR
* HELO name
and instead reject_unknown_hostname you need for a sane sleep
specific rules to at least
On 16 Sep 2014, at 17:59 , Bill Cole
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
It is much safer to use 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' or
'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' or for maximal safety to use a
'check_helo_access' map to specifically reject HELO names patterns that
Subject kind of says it all, can you put check_helo_access in the
smtpd_helo_restrictions block or does it need to be in
smtp_recipient_restrictions?
--
Good old Dame Fortune. You can _depend_ on her.
Am 17.09.2014 um 12:17 schrieb LuKreme:
Subject kind of says it all, can you put check_helo_access in the
smtpd_helo_restrictions block or does it need to be in
smtp_recipient_restrictions?
yes, it's indicated by the name but anyways:
Am 17.09.2014 um 12:17 schrieb LuKreme:
Subject kind of says it all, can you put check_helo_access in the
smtpd_helo_restrictions block or does it need to be in
smtp_recipient_restrictions?
i have
smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
li...@rhsoft.net:
/^Content-(?:Disposition|Type):stuff/x REJECT 554 Attachment Blocked $1
- What is $1 supposed to contain?
- Use REJECT or 554, not both.
Wietse
Jose Borges Ferreira:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
When you follow the include: directives you get lists of net/mask
forms that are easy to convert to postscreen.
$ host -t txt spf1.amazon.com | tr ' ' '\12' | sed -n '/^ip.:/{
Am 17.09.2014 um 13:20 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
/^Content-(?:Disposition|Type):stuff/x REJECT 554 Attachment Blocked $1
- What is $1 supposed to contain?
in fact the attachment name in the log as well
as in the REJET response (Thunderbird dialog)
excerpt from the logs
5.7.1
Patrick Ben Koetter:
There's an RFC for Email Authentication Status Codes
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7372.txt out, which specifies a dedicated
status code when an SMTP client's IP address failed a reverse DNS validation
check, contrary to local policy requirements (see: 3.3. Reverse
* Wietse Venema postfix-users@postfix.org:
Patrick Ben Koetter:
There's an RFC for Email Authentication Status Codes
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7372.txt out, which specifies a
dedicated
status code when an SMTP client's IP address failed a reverse DNS
validation
check,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:09:15PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Yes, I suppose that Postfix
should adopt such status codes (make them configurable?), but there
is no need to do this for older releases.
Having them configurable with sane defaults
On 2014.09.10 14.02, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
btb:
hi-
i have a mail submission server [submission/587 only] [msa.example.com]
for our users [config below]. in that context, it's working as desired.
we also have another, separate, msa [msa.systems.example.com], which
Was investigating why I can't connect to my smtp-sink:
$ smtp-sink -v [::1]:10055 10
smtp-sink: name_mask: all
smtp-sink: trying... [::1]:10055
then in another window: $ smtp-source [::1]:10055
and the smtp-sink aborts with:
smtp-sink: fatal: sockaddr_to_hostaddr: Non-recoverable failure
Mark Martinec:
Turns out that the problem is a structure declared too short
by two bytes to receive a sockaddr_in6 from accept(),
and the two bytes of a received IP address are then clobbered.
In smtp-sink.c/connect_event() the sa is declared
as struct sockaddr instead of struct
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 06:48:28PM +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
Was investigating why I can't connect to my smtp-sink:
$ smtp-sink -v [::1]:10055 10
smtp-sink: name_mask: all
smtp-sink: trying... [::1]:10055
then in another window: $ smtp-source [::1]:10055
and the smtp-sink aborts
Viktor Dukhovni:
I gather you're suggesting a chang along the lines of:
diff --git a/src/smtpstone/smtp-sink.c b/src/smtpstone/smtp-sink.c
index 617fbf9..33872b0 100644
I came up with similar code. It works without surprises.
Wietse
Quick question…
I finally decided to build a web UI for our support guys to be able to manually
kill relaying for compromised accounts using the new check_sasl_access
(http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_sasl_access) feature introduced
in 2.11.
A thread regarding this is here:
CSS:
Quick question?
I finally decided to build a web UI for our support guys to be
able to manually kill relaying for compromised accounts using the
new check_sasl_access
(http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_sasl_access) feature
introduced in 2.11.
A thread regarding this is
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:59:15PM +1000, shm...@riseup.net wrote:
This server is using an EC cert not RSA eventually, The email gets sent
in the clear any help appreciated.
The above is devoid of any technical content. No help is possible.
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
On 16 Sep 2014, at 18:18, Philip Prindeville wrote:
MIMEDefang allows you to do all this, plus you can call Perl modules
like File::Type on attachments to figure out if the file has been
mistyped (i.e. the content-type disagrees with what the actual file
header and/or file extension says it
On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
CSS:
Quick question?
I finally decided to build a web UI for our support guys to be
able to manually kill relaying for compromised accounts using the
new check_sasl_access
CSS:
I often get confused about the difference between responses from
a policy check and an access check. I guess they are basically
the same.
There is no difference. As documented in SMTPD_POLICY_README:
The policy server replies with any action that is allowed in a
Postfix SMTPD
On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Bill Cole
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 18:18, Philip Prindeville wrote:
MIMEDefang allows you to do all this, plus you can call Perl modules like
File::Type on attachments to figure out if the file has been mistyped
30 matches
Mail list logo
