Hi,
because Postfix 2.11 config has been blocking legitimate servers in the
past, I added a white list before the reject_rbl_client listings.
smtpd_client_restrictions =
permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org,
reject_rbl_client ix.dnsbl.manitu.net,
# reject_rbl_client zen.spamha
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michael wrote:
> permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org,
>
> Mar 5 09:18:14 mx0 postfix/smtpd[25201]: warning:
> 144.252.10.85.list.dnswl.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name not
> found. Name service error for name=144.252.10.85.list.dnswl.org
On March 5, 2015 9:38:03 AM Michael wrote:
Did I miss something in my config?
its not a postfix fault
ping6 -c3 ipv6.google.com
ping -c3 ipv4.google.com
dig +trace google.com
where does it fail ?
On 05/03/15 08:37, Michael wrote:
Hi,
because Postfix 2.11 config has been blocking legitimate servers in the
past, I added a white list before the reject_rbl_client listings.
smtpd_client_restrictions =
permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org,
reject_rbl_client ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
Hi,
thanks for your really fast responses! These led me into the right
direction.
The problem is, the name server I'm using is blocked. I'm using a name
server of a big hosting provider.
__
$ dig -t txt amiblocked.dnswl.org
; <<
For the past few days an incoming message rejected by a body_checks rule
has been stuck somewhere and prevents the daily logwatch report being mailed
to me. No subdirectory in /var/spool/postfix/defer/ or ../deferred/ contains
a file and I don't know where to find this so I can remove it. The me
On 05/03/15 11:47, Rich Shepard wrote:
888BE9926E: sender delivery status notification: 25C8B99275
40A9099270: reject: body Mar 3 04:40:03 salmo postfix/cleanup[11578]:
595889929F: reject: body Mar 2 11:14:37 salmo postfix/cleanup[4816]:
B52909929A: reject: body browse and edit data featur
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Leonardo Rodrigues wrote:
postsuper -d QUEUEID
Leonardo,
The mail queue is empty and there is nothing in deferred. I interpret the
message
as a notice of message rejection, not a message itself. It's an unmatched
entry in logwatch. In pflogsumm there's a record of it
when reviewing postscreen entries in logs, it's difficult to quickly
grep for entries relevant to a particular session, since the only unique
value in the entry is the pid, which is quite long lived and spans many
sessions. i wondered how practical it might be to include a unique id
along with
On 3/5/2015 8:47 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> For the past few days an incoming message rejected by a
> body_checks rule
> has been stuck somewhere and prevents the daily logwatch report
> being mailed
> to me. No subdirectory in /var/spool/postfix/defer/ or ../deferred/
> contains
> a file and I do
btb:
> when reviewing postscreen entries in logs, it's difficult to quickly
> grep for entries relevant to a particular session, since the only unique
> value in the entry is the pid, which is quite long lived and spans many
> sessions. i wondered how practical it might be to include a unique i
Rich Shepard:
>For the past few days an incoming message rejected by a body_checks rule
> has been stuck somewhere and prevents the daily logwatch report being mailed
> to me. No subdirectory in /var/spool/postfix/defer/ or ../deferred/ contains
> a file and I don't know where to find this so I
On 3/5/2015 11:36 AM, btb wrote:
> when reviewing postscreen entries in logs, it's difficult to quickly
> grep for entries relevant to a particular session, since the only
> unique value in the entry is the pid, which is quite long lived and
> spans many sessions. i wondered how practical it might
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Noel Jones wrote:
Please send all of the log entries for this message, unedited except for
the recipient name.
Noel,
I was the intended recipient; the sender was a mail list manager:
Mar 2 11:14:37 salmo postfix/cleanup[4816]: B52909929A: reject: body browse
and edit d
Im validating with Windows Live Mail and Microsoft Office.
Chances are small that 2 of microsoft's validation tools are "defective".
However, it seems that the problem solved when I switched to djignz (a
central S/MIME open source solution for signing, decrypting, verification
and encryption.
D
Wietse Venema:
> How many other milters are there after the signing milter?
> If there are none, then your signing milter is defective
> (produces an incorrect signature).
Another possibility is that your validation tool is defective.
Wietse
Hi,
I am currently using postfix with amavisd + spamassassin on FreeBSD.
I have also SPF implemented with some py module.
It is working quite well but I found the management and update of amavisd quite
heavy !
I wanted to know what you were using out there in order to filter efficiently
s
Wietse Venema:
> Rich Shepard:
> >For the past few days an incoming message rejected by a body_checks rule
> > has been stuck somewhere and prevents the daily logwatch report being mailed
> > to me. No subdirectory in /var/spool/postfix/defer/ or ../deferred/ contains
> > a file and I don't kno
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
If this is handled by the pickup daemon, then it is a local submission.
Wietse,
Yes, this is submitted locally.
When a local submission is rejected by header/body_checks then
it should be returned to sender, not get stuck in the queue.
The message
Rich Shepard:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > If this is handled by the pickup daemon, then it is a local submission.
>
> Wietse,
>
>Yes, this is submitted locally.
>
> > When a local submission is rejected by header/body_checks then
> > it should be returned to sender, not
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
That is not a Postfix configuration file. Try:
grep internal_mail_filter_classes /etc/postfix/main.cf /etc/postfix/master.cf
Not found in either one.
Do you have receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks in main.cf
or master.cf?
No; in neit
Rich Shepard:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > That is not a Postfix configuration file. Try:
> > grep internal_mail_filter_classes /etc/postfix/main.cf
> > /etc/postfix/master.cf
>
>Not found in either one.
>
> > Do you have receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks in
Hi,
Up until now I've been using Postfix for one domain, evidently with just
one configuration, using the virtual domains approach. Now I'm in a
situation where I need to handle another completely different domain,
with a different behavior and a different Postfix configuration, on the
same s
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
Last chance: do you have "receive_override_options" in those files?
No.
Otherwise, either your Postfix configuration files are in a different
place (do "postfix reload" and see the real pathname in the mail logfile)
or your Postfix has been changed.
Rich Shepard:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Last chance: do you have "receive_override_options" in those files?
>
>No.
>
> > Otherwise, either your Postfix configuration files are in a different
> > place (do "postfix reload" and see the real pathname in the mail logfile)
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
Can you do "postfix reload" AND LOOK IN THE MAIL LOGFILE. There will
be a record like this:
Mar 5 10:10:24 salmo postfix/postfix-script[11000]: refreshing the Postfix
mail system
Mar 5 10:10:24 salmo postfix/master[21792]: reload -- version 2.11.4,
c
Did we ever confirm where the "stuck" email message comes from?
Here is an example of local submission:
Mar 5 01:05:04 spike postfix/pickup[95787]: 3kyM4J5pqmzJrQ2: uid=1001
from=
Mar 5 01:05:04 spike postfix/cleanup[95928]: 3kyM4J5pqmzJrQ2:
message-id=<3kym4j5pqmzj...@spike.porcupine.org>
H
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
Did we ever confirm where the "stuck" email message comes from?
Mar 3 05:50:32 salmo postfix/pickup[11492]: 241BB9929C: uid=0 from=
Mar 3 05:50:32 salmo postfix/cleanup[13188]: 241BB9929C: message-id=<20150
303135032.241bb99...@salmo.appl-ecosys.com>
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Rich Shepard wrote:
Did we ever confirm where the "stuck" email message comes from?
There's nothing about this message in maillog or maillog.1, only in
maillog.2 from Tuesday.
Using a different string for grep finds this in today's /var/log/maillog:
Mar 5 08:33:50 s
Rich Shepard:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Did we ever confirm where the "stuck" email message comes from?
>
> Mar 3 05:50:32 salmo postfix/pickup[11492]: 241BB9929C: uid=0 from=
> Mar 3 05:50:32 salmo postfix/cleanup[13188]: 241BB9929C: message-id=<20150
> 303135032.241bb99
Rich Shepard:
> Mar 5 08:33:50 salmo postfix/pickup[8043]: 948EC9926E: uid=0 from=
> Mar 5 08:33:50 salmo postfix/cleanup[8825]: 948EC9926E: message-id=<201503
> 05163350.948ec99...@salmo.appl-ecosys.com>
> Mar 5 08:33:50 salmo postfix/cleanup[8825]: 948EC9926E: reject: body Mar
> 4 04:40:03 sa
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
Agian, one message (948EC9926E) is rejected by body_checks, and a
corresponding bounce message (A6C4E99275) is delivered to the sender.
There is no evidence of mail being stuck in the queue. Postfix works as
expected.
Wietse,
Make sense now to me; t
On 3/5/2015 12:10 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> Please send all of the log entries for this message, unedited
>> except for
>> the recipient name.
>
> Noel,
>
> I was the intended recipient; the sender was a mail list manager:
>
> Mar 2 11:14:37 salmo p
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Noel Jones wrote:
But since you state the origin is a mail list manager, it's likely the
message is stuck in the list manager software and not in postfix.
Noel,
And the MLM will likely keep sending it for a few days. I've commented out
that body_checks rule and hope that
On 3/5/2015 4:13 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> But since you state the origin is a mail list manager, it's likely
>> the
>> message is stuck in the list manager software and not in postfix.
>
> Noel,
>
> And the MLM will likely keep sending it for a few d
On 3/5/2015 1:27 PM, Nicolás wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Up until now I've been using Postfix for one domain, evidently with
> just one configuration, using the virtual domains approach. Now I'm
> in a situation where I need to handle another completely different
> domain, with a different behavior and a dif
El 05/03/2015 a las 22:30, Noel Jones escribió:
On 3/5/2015 1:27 PM, Nicolás wrote:
Hi,
Up until now I've been using Postfix for one domain, evidently with
just one configuration, using the virtual domains approach. Now I'm
in a situation where I need to handle another completely different
doma
I am quite surprised that no one has anything to say about this…
;-?
G.B.
> Le 5 mars 2015 à 19:17, b...@todoo.biz a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I am currently using postfix with amavisd + spamassassin on FreeBSD.
> I have also SPF implemented with some py module.
>
> It is working quite wel
On 3/5/2015 4:51 PM, Nicolás wrote:
>
> Actually, on second though, the "different" part just implies that
> one of the domains should run a check_policy_service in its
> smtpd_(sender|recipient)_restrictions, and the other one would not.
Postfix can do this per-domain. General instructions here
El 05/03/2015 a las 23:03, Noel Jones escribió:
On 3/5/2015 4:51 PM, Nicolás wrote:
Actually, on second though, the "different" part just implies that
one of the domains should run a check_policy_service in its
smtpd_(sender|recipient)_restrictions, and the other one would not.
Postfix can do t
Hey,
I know it can be quite cumbersome but are you using a flat file for
managing amavisd and policies or are using mysql backend?
I have found putting all the policies, domains, managment, blacklists etc..
into mysql to be a much better way to manage it. Then you can use a tool
like phpmyadmin
Hello,
Your mileage likely will be different, but I stopped using (content-based)
spam filtering tools altogether several years ago (previously used
SpamAssassin and then DSPAM) in favor of a (rather conservative) set of
Postfix smtpd restrictions (including Spamhaus DNSBL).
One of the reasons
All anti-spam tools require configuration and updating.
Updating (via the FreeBSD ports system or the various linux package
management tools) should be fairly painless for any antispam tool
you choose, or at least they should all have a similar level of pain.
Amavisd-new does not stand out as par
Mar 5 14:03:26 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning: /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf:
process id 58877: command time limit exceeded
Mar 5 14:32:21 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning: /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf:
process id 60423: command time limit exceeded
Mar 5 15:13:00 mail postfix/spawn[62387]: wa
On Thursday, March 05, 2015 04:57:14 PM @lbutlr wrote:
> Mar 5 14:03:26 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning:
> /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf: process id 58877: command time limit exceeded
> Mar 5 14:32:21 mail postfix/spawn[57894]: warning:
> /usr/local/bin/policyd-spf: process id 60423: command time
Hello,
I am having an issue where Postfix does not attempt to authenticate to the
relay I am using, even though the settings appear to be correct. When I look in
the maillog, I see "530 Authentication is required before sending", and when I
run a packet trace, I don't see Postfix ever using AUTH
We have an RHEL-6 host on which jobs like cron and logwatch generate emails
to the local root user. No one logs into this host as root to read those
emails; we want to forward them to the managers (like me) who need to see
them. I can get postfix working to send emails to remote users, but I can't
Hi Markus,
I am pleased to say my 'moonshine' perl based policy is now up and running.
Benning, Markus wrote:
The reject_sender_login_mismatch in smtpd_sender_restriction already
does that
as a native postfix check:
I didn't know that. There is a lot I don't know or understand, which is
why
> On Mar 05, 2015, at 12.51, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> btb:
>> when reviewing postscreen entries in logs, it's difficult to quickly
>> grep for entries relevant to a particular session, since the only unique
>> value in the entry is the pid, which is quite long lived and spans many
>> sessions
On 3/5/2015 7:36 PM, Kai Lanz wrote:
>
> We have an RHEL-6 host on which jobs like cron and logwatch generate emails
> to the local root user. No one logs into this host as root to read those
> emails; we want to forward them to the managers (like me) who need to see
> them. I can get postfix work
On 3/5/2015 7:25 PM, Keegan Giles wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having an issue where Postfix does not attempt to authenticate
> to the relay I am using, even though the settings appear to be
> correct. When I look in the maillog, I see *"530 Authentication is
> required before sending"*, and when I ru
I use a virtual alias to create a simple distribution list to make
communication easier within our group. I'd like to add a "Reply-To"
header to e-mails being forwarded through the virtual alias, because
I'd like to direct replies back to the list by default.
How can I configure Postfix to add a "
Hi,
> I am having an issue where Postfix does not attempt to authenticate to
> the relay I am using, even though the settings appear to be correct.
> When I look in the maillog, I see *"530 Authentication is required
> before sending"*, and when I run a packet trace, I don't see Postfix
> ever usi
53 matches
Mail list logo
