Hi Folks,
I'm running postfix, along with amavisd-new, spamassassin, and clamav
for content filtering, and sympa as a mailing list manager.
It occurs to me, that right now, mail is passing through the content
filters both before it gets to the list manager, and again, after it's
exploded by
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 04:19:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > 1) An optional smtp_check_tls_policy client in the Postfix SMTP
> > > client that speaks TCP or local IPC just like the SMTP server's
> > > check_policy feature.
> > >
> > > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > > smtp_check_tls_polic
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:28:48AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > In order to protect the stability of the Postfix SMTP client, I
> > propose a new feature that builds on smtp_tls_policy_maps that
> > allows experimentation with STS and other features.
> >
> > The design is
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:28:48AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> In order to protect the stability of the Postfix SMTP client, I
> propose a new feature that builds on smtp_tls_policy_maps that
> allows experimentation with STS and other features.
>
> The design is similar to the way that Postfix
Re-reading the docs and my configs I caught an issue -- similarly named params
that I hadn't realized as being different.
If my main.cf I had
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_unauth_pipelining
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
On 3/23/2016 1:40 PM, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote:
> Even though I have the
>
> address_verify_transport_maps =
> static:addressverify:[mail2.example.com]:25
>
> it doesn't look like it's actually checking the remote for recipient address
> verification; instead it's just failing.
Fa
Noel Jones:
> Mar 23 09:01:01 mail2 postfix/error[32481]: 01BA8102D48:
> to=, relay=none, delay=0.24, delays=0.15/0.03/0/0.06,
> dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (example.com)
That looks like an internally-generated bounce message. I don't
have time to look into that now, but I may find out later
On 22 Mar 2016, at 6:07, Torsten Stauder wrote:
Hi mailing-list,
I'm running a webserver which provides web- as well as mailservices.
To send (relay) mails, remote users have to authenticate, but
currently this is not necessary for local users (PHP etc...).
Unwise choice, unless your local
I'm doing some more thinking about this, and trying to follow the flow of the
mail and the probes.
Starting at the front, right now I have a postscreen instance on 'mail1'.
It listens to inbound mail then passes mail to amavisd
[mail1.example.com]:25 inet n - n - 1 postscreen
-
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:29:44AM -0300, Bernardo Vecchia Stein wrote:
> I just checked master.cfg and saw that I enabled chroot (without
> thinking, probably). I have fixed the issue now. Thanks!
You probably did not [enable chroot], Debian (and Ubuntu) did.
--
http://rob0.nodns4.us/
Offli
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 10:03 PM, Rick Zeman wrote:
>> Oops, knew I forgot something, Noel. This is a (soft) bounce f
>> recipient that does exist on the destination system, but not on the
>> postfix system, as the following telnet shows:
>>
>> Mar 22 2
On 3/23/2016 11:25 AM, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm learning how to get remote address verification working. My 'mail1'
> server receives mail from the net, and checks on 'mail2' to see if the
> recipient is valid.
>
> I've got a question about error/dsn status for the reje
Hello,
I'm learning how to get remote address verification working. My 'mail1' server
receives mail from the net, and checks on 'mail2' to see if the recipient is
valid.
I've got a question about error/dsn status for the rejections.
Right now I've got non-existent addresses being rejected, li
Hi Willi,
I just checked master.cfg and saw that I enabled chroot (without thinking,
probably). I have fixed the issue now. Thanks!
Bernardo
On 22 March 2016 at 23:31, wilfried.es...@essignetz.de <
wilfried.es...@essignetz.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is your trivial-rewrite daemon running chrooted?
>
Chris:
> was reject_unverified_recipient in Postfix 2.1 a default value for
> recipient verification? If it was not, I probably have an old mail relay
> that must have send a lot of backscatter mail, since it relayed all mails
> for a domain to a second server.
It has never been part of any defaul
David Schweikert:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:28:48 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > In order to protect the stability of the Postfix SMTP client, I
> > propose a new feature that builds on smtp_tls_policy_maps that
> > allows experimentation with STS and other features.
>
> Great!
Hi Wietse,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:28:48 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> In order to protect the stability of the Postfix SMTP client, I
> propose a new feature that builds on smtp_tls_policy_maps that
> allows experimentation with STS and other features.
Great! I am looking forward to it.
>
17 matches
Mail list logo