> You said in your message "lack of MX record", not "nullMX".
Read the entire thread?
>> postfix/smtp[53472]: 47yz7m5Jj2zg4gL: to=, relay=none,
>> delay=0.29, delays=0.06/0/0.22/0, dsn=5.1.0, status=bounced (Domain
>> hotmal.com does not accept mail (nullMX))
IMO a correct nullMX should be:
hotmal.com. 3600IN MX 0 .
--
Sent from: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postfix-Users-f2.html
Dnia 18.01.2020 o godz. 07:15:23 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> Yes. And? This has what to do with nullMX?
>
> hotmal.com. 3600IN MX 10 .
>
> That is not the same as not having an MX record.
You said in your message "lack of MX record", not "nullMX".
Yes, there are two different
On 17 Jan 2020, at 02:02, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 16.01.2020 o godz. 15:46:31 @lbutlr pisze:
>>
>> Recheck? What do you mean> there is no rechecking the VALID domain is looked
>> up, it does not have an MX record, so postfix does not attempt to deliver it
>> and immediately bounces the
On 1/16/2020 6:06 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni:
Therefore, if this were to be made possible, the right mechanism would
be to to somehow expedite message expiration, with normal processing
on message expiration happening earlier than it would otherwise.
I have a list of
Dnia 17.01.2020 o godz. 13:17:07 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
>
> The nullmx (IN MX .) is one of approaches but must be supported by
> mailservers (luckily it is supported by postfix)
>
> but I find it cleaner to only accept mail for domains with MX than for
> everyone with A records.
I think
Dnia 16.01.2020 o godz. 15:46:31 @lbutlr pisze:
Recheck? What do you mean> there is no rechecking the VALID domain is
looked up, it does not have an MX record, so postfix does not attempt to
deliver it and immediately bounces the message back to the user.
On 17.01.20 10:02, Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 17.01.2020 o godz. 04:17:39 Viktor Dukhovni pisze:
>
> > Instead of "u...@mailserver.domain.com" you type only
> > "u...@domain.com" - that's what MX record is for. But
> > "u...@mailserver.domain.com" is still perfectly valid and mail to such
> > address *has to be* be delivered.
>
> And
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:02:28AM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> It is a perfectly correct setup to not have an MX record for a domain,
> but to have an A record and receive email under that address.
So far so good...
> Instead of "u...@mailserver.domain.com" you type only
> "u...@domain.com" -
Dnia 16.01.2020 o godz. 15:46:31 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> Recheck? What do you mean> there is no rechecking the VALID domain is
> looked up, it does not have an MX record, so postfix does not attempt to
> deliver it and immediately bounces the message back to the user.
But it is wrong approach. It is
On 1/16/2020 4:46 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 16 Jan 2020, at 09:35, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:19 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
: Domain hotmal.com does not accept mail (nullMX)
So perhaps THIS is the issue on your server, you are not respecting nullMX
replies?
Of course not. It's an old list, and
On 16 Jan 2020, at 09:35, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/16/2020 3:19 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>>> : Domain hotmal.com does not accept mail (nullMX)
>> So perhaps THIS is the issue on your server, you are not respecting nullMX
>> replies?
>
> Of course not. It's an old list, and I have no incentive to
On 16.01.20 17:48, Daniel Ryšlink wrote:
As someone already mentioned, that's what the Postfix limits are for,
namely
smtpd_recipient_limit
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit
smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
smtpd_soft_error_limit
smtpd_hard_error_limit
Even
As someone already mentioned, that's what the Postfix limits are for,
namely
smtpd_recipient_limit
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit
smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
smtpd_soft_error_limit
smtpd_hard_error_limit
Even if it is a "spammer sending slowly", there
On 1/16/2020 3:19 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
: Domain hotmal.com does not accept mail (nullMX)
So perhaps THIS is the issue on your server, you are not respecting nullMX
replies?
Of course not. It's an old list, and I have no incentive to recheck
fake domains.
This is what works best for my
Emanuel:
> I think this option would be very useful for those who manage a server
> with many connections
Perhaps it is just me, but I think that there is a misconception
that mail systems must have a human traffic policeman. I'd like to
hear about more intelligent solutions than manual action.
I think this option would be very useful for those who manage a server
with many connections
El 15/1/20 a las 16:07, Wietse Venema escribió:
A postsuper 'bounce' option would require
- Must be invoked by root.
- Drop privileges down to the postfix user.
- Lock the queue file for exclusive
On 15.01.20 16:55, Emanuel wrote:
my question arose because of a user on my server who sent to many
recipients without MX, then the mail was queued until the expiration
time:
bounce_queue_lifetime = 5h
the idea was to reject emails manually with the error message that returned:
Example:
On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as
hotmal.com or aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message
because they still don't notice their typo.
Citát "@lbutlr" :
Then they get the bounce when the max queue expires.
Msd:
> > Which is why on outbound Postfix instances I tend to set:
> >
> > delay_warning_time = 2h,
>
> I'm interested by this functionality but I don't want the external
> senders to be informed of local delivery problems.
> And setting 2 postfix instances seems heavy for a small email
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Therefore, if this were to be made possible, the right mechanism would
> be to to somehow expedite message expiration, with normal processing
> on message expiration happening earlier than it would otherwise.
I have a list of alternatives. The more reasonable ones reuse the
> Which is why on outbound Postfix instances I tend to set:
>
> delay_warning_time = 2h,
I'm interested by this functionality but I don't want the external
senders to be informed of local delivery problems.
And setting 2 postfix instances seems heavy for a small email server.
Is it possible
On 16 Jan 2020, at 00:02, azu...@pobox.sk wrote:
> Citát "@lbutlr" :
>
>> On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as hotmal.com or
>>> aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message because they still
>>> don't notice
Citát "@lbutlr" :
On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as
hotmal.com or aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message
because they still don't notice their typo.
Then they get the bounce when the max queue expires.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I'd like to bounce these immediately as a courtesy to the sender.
> Blacklisting typo domains is a (technically incorrect) losing battle,
> and if the message is to a distribution list, then it's useful for the
> sender to know
On 1/15/20 5:12 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as hotmal.com
> or aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message because they
> still don't notice their typo.
I can +1 this request, even if it's something I morally shouldn't need.
On 15 Jan 2020, at 16:11, @lbutlr wrote:
> There is only so much diaper-changing you can do for your users.
Sorry, one other thing I wanted to add.
You have no control over mail DELIVERY to any domain that is not under your
control. Even if everything in the headers is perfectly correct and
On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
> We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as hotmal.com or
> aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message because they still don't
> notice their typo.
Then they get the bounce when the max queue expires.
The messages in
On 1/15/2020 3:42 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 15 Jan 2020, at 14:55, Emanuel wrote:
my question arose because of a user on my server who sent to many
recipients without MX
Perhaps you just need to add reject_unknown_recipient_domain to
smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
We've had problems with
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:32:43PM +0100, azu...@pobox.sk wrote:
> >> > Why? Someone was drunk and sent a bad email? Is "postsuper -d"
> >> > not sufficient?
> >> >
> >> > Wietse
> >>
> >> Use case: Users are sending undeliverable e-mails which are filling up
> >> mail queue and you must wait
On 15 Jan 2020, at 14:55, Emanuel wrote:
my question arose because of a user on my server who sent to many
recipients without MX
Perhaps you just need to add reject_unknown_recipient_domain to
smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Dnia 15.01.2020 o godz. 20:47:45 azu...@pobox.sk pisze:
> >
> > Use case: Users are sending undeliverable e-mails which are filling
> > up mail queue and you must wait few days until they are bounced. You
> > cannot simply delete them because, if you do, sender won't know it's
>
Dnia 15.01.2020 o godz. 20:47:45 azu...@pobox.sk pisze:
>
> Use case: Users are sending undeliverable e-mails which are filling
> up mail queue and you must wait few days until they are bounced. You
> cannot simply delete them because, if you do, sender won't know it's
> undeliverable and will
Citát Wietse Venema :
azu...@pobox.sk:
Cit?t Wietse Venema :
> azu...@pobox.sk:
>>
>> Cit?t Wietse Venema :
>>
>> > Emanuel:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
>> >>
>> >> In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper
azu...@pobox.sk:
>
> Cit?t Wietse Venema :
>
> > azu...@pobox.sk:
> >>
> >> Cit?t Wietse Venema :
> >>
> >> > Emanuel:
> >> >> Hello,
> >> >>
> >> >> It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
> >> >>
> >> >> In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper i
Hello everyone,
my question arose because of a user on my server who sent to many
recipients without MX, then the mail was queued until the expiration time:
bounce_queue_lifetime = 5h
the idea was to reject emails manually with the error message that returned:
Example:
│Message:
Citát Wietse Venema :
azu...@pobox.sk:
Cit?t Wietse Venema :
> Emanuel:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
>>
>> In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper i not
>> find any information.
>
> That's because bounce by ID is
azu...@pobox.sk:
>
> Cit?t Wietse Venema :
>
> > Emanuel:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
> >>
> >> In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper i not
> >> find any information.
> >
> > That's because bounce by ID is not
Citát Wietse Venema :
Emanuel:
Hello,
It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper i not
find any information.
That's because bounce by ID is not supported.
You can bounce all mail for a specific
Emanuel:
> Hello,
>
> It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
>
> In the documentati?n from de the command postqueue or postsuper i not
> find any information.
That's because bounce by ID is not supported.
You can bounce all mail for a specific recipient or a specific
Hello,
It's possible bouncing email manually with the ID in the queue?
In the documentatión from de the command postqueue or postsuper i not
find any information.
Regards,
--
On 26 Feb 2014, at 07:24 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
wietse:
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
option 1 (for me)
in case
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 25.02.2014 15:42, schrieb Wietse Venema:
That#s what i need.
That#s what I need. :-)
Peer
- --
Heinlein Support GmbH
Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin
http://www.heinlein-support.de
Tel: 030 / 405051-42
Fax: 030 / 405051-19
LuKreme:
OK, what is pfqgrep? I don't see it in my ports tree?
see http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/scripts/
On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
wietse:
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
option 1 (for me)
in case of trouble I do
- mailq for visual overview
- pfqgrep -r/-s
Noel Jones:
On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
wietse:
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
option 1 (for me)
in case of trouble I do
- mailq for visual overview
On 2/26/2014 9:53 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
wietse:
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
option 1 (for me)
in case of trouble I do
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
on the next queue run without
Noel Jones:
I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
on the next queue run without much new code?
Indeed, not, because you can't
On 2/26/2014 2:34 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
on the next queue run without much
Viktor Dukhovni:
To bounce a message, the queue file is locked, bounce log entries
are written for each remaining recipient, and the message is moved
to the new queue. No unsafe (non-atomic) changes are made to the
original queue file.
If this logfile update bypasses the queue manager or
wietse:
But wait, there is more
does not sound like an easy job.
just an idea: if the timestamp of a queuefile is relevant, could a
changed time
of a queuefile be interpreted as bounce immediately ?
for example timestamp to a fixed date near 1.1.1970
Andreas
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:14:10PM +0100, Andreas Schulze wrote:
But wait, there is more
does not sound like an easy job.
The difficult parts are not in marking the queue file.
just an idea: if the timestamp of a queuefile is relevant, could a
changed time
of a queuefile be
I'm thinking about a way how to bounce mails manually *without* setting
up a transport-map. Just bei CLI by the admin for a given Queue-ID.
I'd love having a postsuper-commando to move a mail into the bounce
queue. Is something like that possible?
Peer
--
Heinlein Support GmbH
Schwedter Str
Peer Heinlein:
I'm thinking about a way how to bounce mails manually *without* setting
up a transport-map. Just bei CLI by the admin for a given Queue-ID.
I'd love having a postsuper-commando to move a mail into the bounce
queue. Is something like that possible?
thanks for the question.
I
On 25/02/2014 10:10, Peer Heinlein wrote:
I'm thinking about a way how to bounce mails manually *without* setting
up a transport-map. Just bei CLI by the admin for a given Queue-ID.
I'd love having a postsuper-commando to move a mail into the bounce
queue. Is something like that possible
Birta Levente:
Why not just delete from the queue?
from senders perspective that message is lost.
sometimes it's useful to clear bounce back to sender.
Andreas
On 25/02/2014 10:49, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Birta Levente:
Why not just delete from the queue?
from senders perspective that message is lost.
sometimes it's useful to clear bounce back to sender.
Yes, but you sould give some reason why is bounced ... which IMHO is
something permanent ...
Birta Levente:
Yes, but you sould give some reason why is bounced ... which IMHO is
something permanent ...
good point!
# postbounce queue-id reason
so you just set up one time some map and no more care about that problem.
just this is unwanted and the reason for the request.
Andreas
On 25/02/2014 11:02, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Birta Levente:
Yes, but you sould give some reason why is bounced ... which IMHO is
something permanent ...
good point!
# postbounce queue-id reason
so you just set up one time some map and no more care about that
problem.
just this is unwanted
Am 25.02.2014 10:09, schrieb Birta Levente:
On 25/02/2014 11:02, Andreas Schulze wrote:
Birta Levente:
Yes, but you sould give some reason why is bounced ... which IMHO is
something permanent ...
good point!
# postbounce queue-id reason
so you just set up one time some map and no more
Peer Heinlein:
I'm thinking about a way how to bounce mails manually *without* setting
up a transport-map. Just bei CLI by the admin for a given Queue-ID.
I'd love having a postsuper-commando to move a mail into the bounce
queue. Is something like that possible?
That would require
wietse:
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
option 1 (for me)
in case of trouble I do
- mailq for visual overview
- pfqgrep -r/-s address -i | postsuper -d -
In this context it would
63 matches
Mail list logo
