Re: Resolve before transport

2017-10-01 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 09:18:44AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > When the concurrency limit for "[addr]:port" permits, the queue > > manager would call smtp(8) again (with the original delivery request > > and the list of already used addresses, and smtp(8) would attemt > > delivery to the

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema: > > Sep 28 08:42:00 ip-172-31-28-174 postfix/local[4413]: B6DAA54DDC: > > to=, relay=local, delay=0.01, > > delays=0.01/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: "abcliste") > > What does this even have to do with recipient_deliter? Your

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Wietse Venema
> Sep 28 08:42:00 ip-172-31-28-174 postfix/local[4413]: B6DAA54DDC: > to=, relay=local, delay=0.01, > delays=0.01/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: "abcliste") What does this even have to do with recipient_deliter? Your local_recipent_maps

How to fake Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR)?

2017-10-01 Thread MRob
Hello, short of Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR) becoming standard, may I ask how administrators are faking it? I understand you can temp-fail all but the first rcpt-to, but how to do this in Postfix? Does it require a custom milter? Surely there must be a published solution somewhere?

Re: Backscatter questions

2017-10-01 Thread @lbutlr
On 01 Oct 2017, at 09:59, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > a little searching says it's correct: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/postfix-users@postfix.org/msg25973.html Excellent! Thanks for researching that. -- Apple broke AppleScripting signatures in Mail.app, so no

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Thor Atle Rustad
2017-10-01 22:17 GMT+02:00 Wietse Venema : > Thor Atle Rustad: > > > > > > > > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > > > recipient_delimiter = + > > > > > > Wietse > > > > > I have had recipient_delimiter = + since day 1. The mailman instructions > > call for that. > > Prove

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Wietse Venema
Thor Atle Rustad: > > > > > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > > recipient_delimiter = + > > > > Wietse > > > I have had recipient_delimiter = + since day 1. The mailman instructions > call for that. Prove it. Show output from postconf -n recipient_delimiter postconf -P

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
this looks like the extension works properly: abcliste+something is expanded to user "abcliste" that is unknown On 01.10.17 20:32, Thor Atle Rustad wrote: Ok, so if there had been a local user "abcliste" , the "+something" part would have been ignored and the message delivered, which I

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Thor Atle Rustad
> > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > recipient_delimiter = + > > Wietse > I have had recipient_delimiter = + since day 1. The mailman instructions call for that.

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Wietse Venema
Thor Atle Rustad: > > Here is my main.cf > >> and > >> output > >> in /var/log/mail.log > >> after > >> sending an email from localhost. > >> > >> And here,

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Thor Atle Rustad
> Here is my main.cf >> and >> output >> in /var/log/mail.log >> after >> sending an email from localhost. >> >> And here, /var/log/mail.log >>

Re: SSL/TLS configuration for relaying

2017-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 29.09.17 13:09, Nachtfalter wrote: I got a postfix mail server (host=smtp) configured for some domains that relay all messages for these domains to a second mail server (hmailserver, host = mail). This setup works fine when I use smtp:25 to forward mail from postfix to hmailserver. Now I

Re: address extension fails for mailman

2017-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 29.09.17 01:36, thorthor wrote: Here is my main.cf and output in /var/log/mail.log after sending an email from localhost. And here, /var/log/mail.log

Re: Backscatter questions

2017-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 01 Oct 2017, at 08:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: 2. their sender addresses should be validated with smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender On 01.10.17 09:22, @lbutlr wrote: Do Address delimiters have an issue with this? I thought they did. I thought that's exactly what

Re: Backscatter questions

2017-10-01 Thread @lbutlr
On 01 Oct 2017, at 08:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > 2. their sender addresses should be validated with > smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender Do Address delimiters have an issue with this? I thought they did. That is, u...@example.com sends and email "from"

Re: Backscatter questions

2017-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 27.09.17 13:49, J Doe wrote: 1. From what I understand, “backscatter” refers to e-mails such as non-delivery reports being sent back to the originator of a spam message. As the originator is often a forged address, the non-delivery reports is essentially junk data. Would this be a correct

Re: Resolve before transport

2017-10-01 Thread @lbutlr
On 30 Sep 2017, at 07:18, Wietse Venema wrote: > It could be simple. Suppose there is a 'popular site' counter table > (the opposite of the 'dead site' list) which is indexed by some > idea of 'destination' and which is updated in real time as delivery > agents announce what