If you want to enable them, you have to uncomment ALL lines for
submission
service to work correctly.
That's good idea. Thanks Rafa.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Dnia 21.06.2024 o godz. 07:54:40 Jeff Peng via Postfix-users pisze:
> for these options for submission in master.cf:
>
> submission inet n - y - - smtpd
> # -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
> # -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
> -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
Dnia 21.06.2024 o godz. 18:45:15 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
> SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your
> mail to be accepted:
>
> 1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
>
> 2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
>
> 3. Envelope Sender domain should align with the From:
The default value is "no", as expected.
$ postconf -d smtpd_sasl_auth_enable
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = no
Best practice is to enable SASL auth only on the submission ports and
NOT on port 25.
I have changed the setting for submission to:
submission inet n - y -
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-21 08:45:
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
SPF/DKIM/DMARC Checklist for (IMO) the best chance of getting your mail
to be accepted:
1. HELO banner should pass SPF.
2. Envelope Sender should pass SPF.
3. Envelope Sender
On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 07:54:40AM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hello
>
> for these options for submission in master.cf:
>
> submission inet n - y - - smtpd
> # -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
> # -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
> -o
Hello
for these options for submission in master.cf:
submission inet n - y - - smtpd
# -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
# -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
# -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes
# -o smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no
#
On 2024-06-20 at 15:59:25 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:59:25 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
If you use some Milter like rspamd then you need milter_header_checks.
You could do that, but if a milter is handling the filter it can just
tell postfix to
Le 21/06/2024 à 00:13, John Levine a écrit :
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch
best is to use a milter to reject spam, such as rspamd or
amavisd-milter, no forged header checks then
i know rspamd is a milter, but spamassassin not working as milter?
thanks.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
>In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
>interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
>There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch evaluate
>whatever SPF identity check that
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 01:02:36PM -0400, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> > will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
> An option is to have noreply@ delivered to /dev/null. It's valid and a
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-20 21:28:
If it’s header_checks, I would probably use something like
/^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-100[/ to catch everything above five.
header checks in postfix is done before content filters, so you would
love to reject spam on base of
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> > On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17?AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> >> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> >> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> >>
On 6/20/2024 2:28 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
Le 20/06/2024 à 21:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users a écrit :
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was
> On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
>> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
>> mail off to spamassassin for processing and
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
This helo-argument is by default the value of the Postfix
So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for the sending hostname)
as I was seeing some of these I think.
Im confused by the language being used.
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users, <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
> doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
>
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an automatic
response. IMHO.
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender.
2024. 06. 20. 14:33 keltezéssel, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users írta:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
One could try
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 09:08:39 Bastian Blank via Postfix-users pisze:
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
Sender callout is discouraged now, because it is considered aggressive
behavior
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 08:51:33 Alexander Leidinger via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> This implies that the organization / company is willing to spend
> money on having someone available to actually respond / provide
> support. For a lot of the use cases I would say even a mail to
> ticket system
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting.
"Proper" is for the recipients of your messages to be able to use the
reply function in their MUA, to ask for clarification/assistance in
regards to the
On 2024-06-20 at 09:00:35 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:00:35 +0200)
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message
rejected
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message rejected
due to: SPF fail - not authorized. Please see
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>>> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>>
>> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
>
> Yes, but easily
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users wrote:
> > One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>
> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
Yes, but easily adapted.
> But I don't know how such a regex should
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
>>
>> If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
>
> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
Please
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> mail off to spamassassin for processing and then receives it back
> for delivery, but I'm unclear what checks could be
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
On 20.06.24 11:22, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never
>
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
>
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never receiveread any messages. Is an
automated message to
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:47:19AM +0200, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
> @Ralph
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
> rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an
Am 2024-06-20 08:21, schrieb Peter via Postfix-users:
On 20/06/24 17:47, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
So many replies!
@Ralph
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any
way, rejecting the
On 20/06/24 17:47, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
So many replies!
@Ralph
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any
way, rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an
Got some news!
When sending emails from my domain (to my domain), rejection IS applied
(and message displayed to the client MUA)
When sending emails from Office365, rejection is shown in the logs, but
message is considered sent for the client (no message)
Is this meaningful for you?
On Thu,
So many replies!
@Ralph
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an automatic
response. IMHO.
@Peter
My /etc/postfix/no-reply_reject
> On Jun 19, 2024, at 7:13 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> postfix--- via Postfix-users:
>>> does smtp have an action "discard"? if so where messages will be discarded?
>>> I see smtp code has "reject" while sieve has "discard". So I am asking this
>>> question.
>>
>>
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> > does smtp have an action "discard"? if so where messages will be discarded?
> > I see smtp code has "reject" while sieve has "discard". So I am asking this
> > question.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
> There is a DISCARD action.
Also in
does smtp have an action "discard"? if so where messages will be discarded?
I see smtp code has "reject" while sieve has "discard". So I am asking this
question.
http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
There is a DISCARD action.
___
On 20/06/24 04:35, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
It appears that Peter via Postfix-users said:
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is
Hello
does smtp have an action "discard"? if so where messages will be
discarded?
I see smtp code has "reject" while sieve has "discard". So I am asking
this question.
Thank you.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users:
> * Ansgar Wiechers via Postfix-users:
>
> > [...]
>
> Did I ever send mail to you using the mailing list address you got
> barred from targeting, or send mail to you at all from my servers? No,
> I did not.
>
> You tried to initiate communication by sending
* Ansgar Wiechers via Postfix-users:
> [...]
Did I ever send mail to you using the mailing list address you got
barred from targeting, or send mail to you at all from my servers? No,
I did not.
You tried to initiate communication by sending mail to an address you
had no reason to contact, this
It appears that Peter via Postfix-users said:
>On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> *Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
>
>There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is no part of the
>email specification that allows
Rob Sterenborg (Lists) via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I was reading the SASL_README, "The ldapdb plugin" at:
>
> https://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#auxprop_ldapdb
>
> [quote]
> Tip: [...snip...] Instead, you can use "saslauthd -a ldap" to query the
> LDAP database directly, with
On 2024-06-19 Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
> * Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users:
>
> > From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
> > Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
>
> Dang, blindsided by Mailman 3, sorry. What I wrote about my dislike of
> using "nore...@foo.bar" type addresses remains
* Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users:
> From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
> Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
Dang, blindsided by Mailman 3, sorry. What I wrote about my dislike of
using "nore...@foo.bar" type addresses remains unchanged, however. If
sender A sends mail to recipient B, A needs to be
Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users:
[reply-to header]
> He didn't do it - it's being added by Mailman. Whether by default or
> deliberately I do not know.
This is damage control for DMARC. The mailing list address goes in
the From: header, and the poster's email address goes in Reply-To:
so that
Hi,
I was reading the SASL_README, "The ldapdb plugin" at:
https://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#auxprop_ldapdb
[quote]
Tip: [...snip...] Instead, you can use "saslauthd -a ldap" to query the
LDAP database directly, with appropriate configuration in
saslauthd.conf, as described here.
Mornin'
|# Error reporting
error_notice_recipient = postmaster@email.broker
#https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#error_notice_recipient
notify_classes = bounce, delay, policy, protocol, resource, software
#https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#notify_classes
|
The above will insure
On 2024-06-19 Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-06-19 17:29, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
>> On 2024-06-19 02:27, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
...
On 2024-06-19 17:29, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-06-19 02:27, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
...
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
...
I've found this to block some legitimate
On 2024-06-19 02:27, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
>> ...
>> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
>> ...
> I've found this to block some legitimate mails in the past
Sorry, I meant
On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
> ...
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
> ...
I've found this to block some legitimate mails in the past from Bank of
America, so you may want to grep your logs for "Helo command rejected:
Host not
> On 19 Jun 2024, at 4:29 PM, Gilgongo via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > The defaults for those settings, as far as postfix is concerned, are as
> > follows:
> >
> > smtpd_tls_auth_only = no
>
> Why? Surely, "yes" is the better choice...
>
> You need to set this to "yes" if you plan to have
On 19/06/2024 18:19, Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public mailing list.
Like you did yourself?
From: Ralph
Hi,
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public mailing list.
Like you did yourself?
From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is no part of the
email specification that allows a message to be marked as unable to be
replied to. Many
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply
> email.
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public mailing
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
AFAIK, this should be configuren on smtpd_recipient_restrictions using
check_recipient_access. Please, let me know if I'm wrong.
It's not working, so maybe it's because I don't know if rules are applied
on first match
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 03:57, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Cody Millard via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > The defaults for those settings, as far as postfix is concerned, are as
> > follows:
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:02:20PM -0500, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
> as for why I set these explicitly, I figured that more random bits means
> more secure.
>
> tls_random_bytes = 64
> tls_daemon_random_bytes = 64
No need to clutter the configuration with overzealous low-level
Hi Viktor.
Please check my original post. Your comments are on the postfix defaults
and not my current settings.
as for why I set these explicitly, I figured that more random bits means
more secure.
tls_random_bytes = 64
tls_daemon_random_bytes = 64
On 6/18/2024 9:56 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
> The defaults for those settings, as far as postfix is concerned, are as
> follows:
>
> smtpd_tls_auth_only = no
Why? Surely, "yes" is the better choice...
> smtpd_tls_security_level =
Why empty? Surely "may" is
On 2024-06-19 05:15, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
I am not sure what SRS or AUC are right now.
I saw Dr. Lindenberg has a similar test suite like your site.
https://blog.lindenberg.one/EmailSecurityTest
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
785 243 via Postfix-users:
> I want to implement rate limiting based on the target server rather
> than by recipient domain. Specifically, I want to rate limit email
> sent to domains like yahoo.com, ymail.com, aol.com, myyahoo.com, and
> verizon.net as a group, since these domains appears to be
I want to implement rate limiting based on the target server rather
than by recipient domain. Specifically, I want to rate limit email
sent to domains like yahoo.com, ymail.com, aol.com, myyahoo.com, and
verizon.net as a group, since these domains appears to be handled by
the same servers. This
I am not sure what SRS or AUC are right now.
The defaults for those settings, as far as postfix is concerned, are as
follows:
|smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = no
smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous
smtpd_sasl_tls_security_options = $smtpd_sasl_security_options
smtpd_tls_auth_only = no
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> > On Jun 18, 2024, at 3:33?PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> >> [18-Jun-2024 14:53:32 -0500]: PHP Error: SMTP server does not
> >> support authentication (POST
> >>
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 3:33 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> [18-Jun-2024 14:53:32 -0500]: PHP Error: SMTP server does not
>> support authentication (POST
>> /webmail/?_task=mail&_unlock=loading1718740412272&_framed=1&_action=send)
>
>
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> [18-Jun-2024 14:53:32 -0500]: PHP Error: SMTP server does not
> support authentication (POST
> /webmail/?_task=mail&_unlock=loading1718740412272&_framed=1&_action=send)
Indeed, you have
smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
-o
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Noel Jones via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 18, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>
>> So, here is what I now have configued in roundcube:
>>
>> $config['smtp_host'] = 'tls://mail.stovebolt.com:465';
>>
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Noel Jones via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 18, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>
>> So, here is what I now have configued in roundcube:
>>
>> $config['smtp_host'] = 'tls://mail.stovebolt.com:465';
>>
What about providing Postfix logs? As long as you can't provide
the Postfix perspective, finding help here will be difficult.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> So, here is what I now have configued in roundcube:
>
> $config['smtp_host'] = 'tls://mail.stovebolt.com:465';
> $config['smtp_auth_type'] = 'PLAIN';
> $config['smtp_user'] = '%u';
> $config['smtp_pass'] = '%p’;
>
I’ve posted several times about the problems that I’m having getting roundcube
to send mail through postfix. I think you can throw out all the previous posts
and start anew.
In one exchange, Victor pointed out that I did not have -o
smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes set in master. (It was commented
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> 465inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
...
> -o smtpd_milters=$mua_milters
> -o always_add_missing_headers=yes
Nit: always_add_missing_headers is a cleanup(8) daemon feature.
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-18 15:27:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:20:46PM +0200, Benny Pedersen via
Postfix-users wrote:
xpoint@tux ~ $ posttls-finger -w -lsecure -C "www.stovebolt.com:465"
"www.stovebolt.com"
posttls-finger: Connected to
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-18 08:04:
posttls-finger: server certificate verification failed for
mail.stovebolt.com[108.174.193.29]:465: num=62:Hostname mismatch
This looks like it’s working correctly now, right?
hostname mismatch means still need to reissue new cert
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:20:46PM +0200, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
> xpoint@tux ~ $ posttls-finger -w -lsecure -C "www.stovebolt.com:465"
> "www.stovebolt.com"
> posttls-finger: Connected to www.stovebolt.com[108.174.193.28]:465
> posttls-finger: server certificate verification
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-18 06:39:
On Jun 17, 2024, at 10:14 PM, Cowbay via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 2024/6/18 10:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
The problem is neither tls nor ssl worked. No matter what config I
used, roundcube would always through an error.
Jeff Peng via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-18 09:30:
smtps inet n - y - - smtpd
-o
smtpd_sender_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject
order matters, first wins
-o
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-18 04:08:
On 18/06/24 13:00, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
On 2024-06-18 07:30, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 17/06/2024 17:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
though it's a big offtopic, may I ask that, for roundcube, how to stop
users adding their
Thanks for all the kind helps. I have resolved the issue and wrote a
note for it.
https://notes.postno.de/how-to-use-reject-sender-login-mismatch-in-postfix.html
if you find any issue in this note, please let me know.
Thanks.
Oh, sorry I didn't see you weren't using
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 08:55, Jeff Peng wrote:
> I did have tried this line (with just one value
> reject_sender_login_mismatch).
> But then I even can't send mail from the valid user (the user who login
> into RC).
>
Oh, sorry I didn't see you weren't using smtpd_sender_login_maps. I'm
pretty
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 08:31, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have this section in master.cf:
>
> smtps inet n - y - - smtpd
>-o syslog_name=postfix/smtps
>-o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
>-o
On 2024-06-18 15:51, Gilgongo wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 08:31, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
Hello,
I have this section in master.cf:
smtps inet n - y - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/smtps
-o
Hello,
I have this section in master.cf:
smtps inet n - y - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/smtps
-o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o
smtpd_sender_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 1:34 AM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 01:04:25AM -0500, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> # posttls-finger -w -lsecure -C "mail.stovebolt.com:465" "www.stovebolt.com"
>
> Why the "www.stovebolt.com"??? What hostname
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 01:04:25AM -0500, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> posttls-finger: warning: TLS library problem: error:1408F10B:SSL
> >> routines:ssl3_get_record:wrong version number:ssl/record/ssl3_record.c:332:
> >
> > Your port 465 "smtps" service is misconfigured, it is
> On Jun 18, 2024, at 12:38 AM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:39:27PM -0500, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> That might have uncovered a problem.
>>
>> # posttls-finger -w -lsecure -C "www.stovebolt.com:465" “www.stovebolt.com"
>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:39:27PM -0500, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
> That might have uncovered a problem.
>
> # posttls-finger -w -lsecure -C "www.stovebolt.com:465" “www.stovebolt.com"
>
> posttls-finger: Connected to www.stovebolt.com[108.174.193.28]:465
> posttls-finger:
> On Jun 17, 2024, at 10:14 PM, Cowbay via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On 2024/6/18 10:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
> The problem is neither tls nor ssl worked. No matter what config I used,
> roundcube would always through an error. If I used $config['smtp_host'] =
>
On 2024-06-18 10:40, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
To be honest, you still likely want authentication. Keep in mind
that you don't need to authenticate as a single user for roundcube
but rather you can have roundcube pass authentication through from
it's own user login and therefore
On 18/06/2024 12:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
[SNIP]
roundcube would always through an error. If I used $config['smtp_host']
= ‘tls;//www.stovebolt.com'; or I used $config['smtp_host'] =
’ssl;//www.stovebolt.com'; roundcube would error out saying it couldn’t
I hope the
On 2024/6/18 10:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
On Jun 17, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Peter via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 17/06/2024 17:28, Paul Schmehl wrote:
How do you set up roundcube to not use authentication? I really don’t need it
since it’s on the same machine as the mail server.
On 18/06/24 14:43, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
If I used $config['smtp_host']
= ‘tls;//www.stovebolt.com'; or I used $config['smtp_host'] =
’ssl;//www.stovebolt.com'; roundcube would error out saying it couldn’t
connect to the server.
It's "tls://..." or "ssl://" with a colon (:)
201 - 300 of 96910 matches
Mail list logo
