AW: google's receiving policies

TOL publishes a list of their mailservers and also has them listed at DNSWL. The list auf these ~20 IPs probably is in many configs somewhere. And/or a DNSWL query. F.e. when TOL gets listed on Spamcop or others again. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@post

AW: how to deal with t-online's blocking

Hi, only commercial websites and those of entities (e.V. etc.) require an imprint in germany. The "TOL problem" also occurs for private persons who do nothing wrong legally. And it also affects commercial services who do not host a website under the mail domain. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche

AW: how to deal with t-online's blocking

Hi, I remember writing to TOL on behalf of a .net organisation. And request they whitelist the new IP of their server. That worked. The address should be in your logfile with the reject. Did you use that or some other channel to talk to them? So many companies ignore basic things like abuses.

AW: pflogsumm not catching some lines

Hi, thank you for clearing up the pflogsumm status. >seems that two forks are a bit ahead >https://github.com/sbidy/pflogsumm >https://github.com/rebouny/pflogsumm I tried the newer version from the debian repository and the forks above. The one from sbidy reports the cleanup header part again.

AW: Spam pass the filter

Hi, pcre header checks we use. Not all the time, depends on spam volume from these valuable enterprises. #/sjmedia.us/ REJECT A mass mail service abused by criminals #/bmsend.com/ REJECT A mass mail service abused by criminals #/mailgun.net/ REJECT A mass mail service abused by criminals #/r

AW: Hostname DNS error

Resolved - it was indeed a lookup problem. Thx! -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Gerald Galster Gesendet: Samstag, 21. August 2021 11:09 An: Postfix users Betreff: Re: Hostname DNS error > Aug 21 10:22:59 stretch postfix/smtpd[8394]: warnin

Hostname DNS error

Hi, I am having trouble receiving mail from this specific host: Aug 21 10:22:59 stretch postfix/smtpd[8394]: warning: hostname mail.radio-z.net does not resolve to address 136.243.54.124 Aug 21 10:22:59 stretch postfix/smtpd[8394]: connect from unknown[136.243.54.124] Aug 21 10:22:59 stretch po

AW: Google spam...

Yes, many of them are regular GUI users. But also many of them do the same scheme for years now, sometimes for long periods with the same accounts. Like the notorious "Maria Elisabeth Schaeffler" mass scam every day. I do not believe Google does not know what goes on. They just don't care. Othe

AW: Google spam...

Google does not honor abuse addresses, or spamcop. Which makes it the #1 scammer paradise. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Vince Heuser Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. August 2021 02:06 An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: Re: Goog

AW: Timeout, bounce, duplicate mails

Hi, Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Wietse Venema >> plesk_virtual (total: 2) >> 2 Command time limit exceeded: "/usr/lib/plesk-9.0/postfix-local" >Some message delivery needed more than one thousand seconds. >> Is this timeout somehow configurable for me? My gue

Timeout, bounce, duplicate mails

Hi all, I see a few occasions of this every day: plesk_virtual (total: 2) 2 Command time limit exceeded: "/usr/lib/plesk-9.0/postfix-local" It leads to particular mails to bounce, then be sent again, then having multiple copies of it in the mailbox. This happens with ext

AW: Postfix Helo reverse Exception

I tried to work with reject_unknown_helo_hostname time and time again. But way too many regular servers don't comply. It does not seem as there is much progress. OTOH, reject_invalid_helo_hostname does a good job in my realm of mail traffic. I have yet to see a complaint about turning these away.

AW: can't send to GSuite mailserver via IPv6 protocol

Sending to Gmail via IPv6 gives me no troubles. MX, host and helo all have their records. I figure it would not only be Gmail with problems if IPv6 MX had no reverse DNS. Greets, Ludi Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Thomas Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 10

AW: replying with OK

Or set it up to catch-all für a certain domain? Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von dev...@dvb.homelinux.org Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2021 12:57 An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: Re: replying with OK On Wed, Feb 24, 2021

AW: How to deal with sending mail from host isbd.uk?

Give the machine a hostname, put hostname.domain.tld in hostname file and DNS. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Chris Green Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Februar 2021 17:18 An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: How to deal with sending

AW: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

Can't this be simply done by bash/cron? Execute dnsdomainname Alter main.cf postfix reload Not sure about startup / system boot. Just my first thoughts. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Chris Green Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Febru

AW: Catch a forged Return Path

Hi, >Does Plesk not give you access to the main.cf file? How do you configure >postfix at all? Plesk does rewrite the main.cf file (and possible others) upon changes in the GUI or updates. Not everything gets thrown out, but quite some lines revert to a Plesk default. It is not bad when it is

AW: Catch a forged Return Path

Hi, >On 6/02/21 2:23 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> while I support using postscreen, I'm not sure it would be able to >> catch backscatter, becsuse backscatter often comes from servers who >> properly follow SMTP RFCs. >The question here is whether this is really backscatter, or just spa

AW: Catch a forged Return Path

Hi, >>Return-Path: >> >>to disguise as a bounce and bypass any further checks. >> >>So the PCRE header check >> >>/^Return-Path: / REJECT Forged Return-Path >> >>does not catch. >are you sure it's a Return-Path header? >usually, envelope sender is put to Return-Path, so you may need to b

Catch a forged Return Path

Hi all, new MS Azure Cloudapp Spam Wave these days. Just a few hosts, but a lot of Spam. There is a pattern there, they all use Return-Path: to disguise as a bounce and bypass any further checks. So the PCRE header check /^Return-Path: / REJECT Forged Return-Path does not catch. Any other

AW: Sender address rejected: Domain not found

Hi, looks like a simple DNS error to me. In order for mails from @server.cointalk.com to be valid, that domain must exist as A records in DNS. You could whitelist *.cointalk.com in postfix config, but I suggest fixing the DNS. Greets, Ludi -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: owner-postfix-

AW: Controlling MS Azure Cloud Spam

Hi, thanks for your replies. I took a second look at that spam wave and noticed that the scheme 1. Return-Path: 2. Empty From Field might not actually be true. The From field often contains something, but no FQDN. Postfix rejected the spam correctly when pointed at Az

AW: SPAM attack from bounce techniques

Hi Rafael, quick thoughts. Do you have smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_destination in your main.cf? The request should be rejected and not be queued. Greets, Ludi Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org Im Auftrag von Rafael Azevedo Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Dezem

Controlling MS Azure Cloud Spam

Hi, I am seeing a wave of MS Azure Cloud Spam these days. Many of these mails come with a header: * Return-Path: * Empty From Field They than pass the greylisting filter (and all others it seems) with "Bounce message. Skip." Is there a way to influence this behaviou