On 29/03/12 10:51, Женя wrote:
I'm using postfix (2.7.0 on Ubuntu Linux 10.04.3) as mail relay and
antispam filter. It's set up and works perfectly except one small
bug. I use smtpd_client_restrictions to filter SMTP clents as
following:
smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks
:
/google\.com/ OK
/mail\.ru/ OK
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
/^mail\.ru$/
RTFM!
Wietse
That's it. Ashamed.
Tricky REGEX. Thanks everyone. And thank you for great mail server.
:
/google\.com/ OK
/mail\.ru/ OK
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
/^mail\.ru$/
RTFM!
Wietse
Could somebody recommend a good tutorial on REGEX and/or PRCE?
John A
On 29/03/2012 11:35 AM, Женя wrote:
That's it. Ashamed.
Tricky REGEX. Thanks everyone. And thank you for great mail server.
:
/google\.com/ OK
/mail\.ru/ OK
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
http://rubular.com/
a good place to test and learn...
On Mar 29, 2012, at 5:42 PM, john wrote:
Could somebody recommend a good tutorial on REGEX and/or PRCE?
John A
On 29/03/2012 11:35 AM, Женя wrote:
That's it. Ashamed.
Tricky REGEX. Thanks everyone. And thank you for great mail
On 3/29/2012 5:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
/^mail\.ru$/
The expression must also match subdomains.
/[^.]google\.com$/
/[^.]mail\.ru$/
pesky regexps... always causing trouble.
-- Noel Jones
Noel Jones:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
/^mail\.ru$/
The expression must also match subdomains.
/[^.]google\.com$/
/[^.]mail\.ru$/
To match zero or more labels before the domain name:
/^([^.]+\.)*google\.com$/
On 3/29/2012 1:15 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
On 3/29/2012 5:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
You mean:
/^google\.com$/
/^mail\.ru$/
The expression must also match subdomains.
/[^.]google\.com$/
/[^.]mail\.ru$/
To match zero or more labels before the domain name:
Eliezer Croitoru:
On 07/03/2012 02:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
Eliezer Croitoru:
i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is
this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to
be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on
OS:Gentoo latest built with kernel 3.2.1 with hardened profile
POSTFIX: v 2.9.1
when i'm configuring on master.cf some listening to port on ip address
that doesn't exist on any interface such as for communicating with
amavis (as if my ip is 192.168.0.20 and i will put 192.168.0.21:25 )
postfix
Eliezer Croitoru:
OS:Gentoo latest built with kernel 3.2.1 with hardened profile
POSTFIX: v 2.9.1
when i'm configuring on master.cf some listening to port on ip address
that doesn't exist on any interface such as for communicating with
amavis (as if my ip is 192.168.0.20 and i will put
Wietse Venema:
Eliezer Croitoru:
OS:Gentoo latest built with kernel 3.2.1 with hardened profile
POSTFIX: v 2.9.1
when i'm configuring on master.cf some listening to port on ip address
that doesn't exist on any interface such as for communicating with
amavis (as if my ip is
and the only way i
managed to make postfix work is to fix the master.cf and rebooting
the machine\os.
You need to provide the proper information to debug a possible bug.
Start here: http://www.postfix.com/DEBUG_README.html
Be sure to read this part thoroughly:
http://www.postfix.com
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 07:03:04AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
/etc/postfix/master.cf:
1.2.3.4:25 inet n - n - 1 whatever
# postfix stop
# postfix start
# tail -3 /var/log/maillog
Mar 6 06:53:25 tail postfix/master[60082]: terminating on signal 15
Eray Aslan:
# postfix start
postfix/postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system
# echo $?
0
As documented in the Postfix manpage:
start Start the Postfix mail system. This also runs the configuration
check described above.
status Indicate if the Postfix mail system is
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:40:16AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
start Start the Postfix mail system. This also runs the configuration
check described above.
status Indicate if the Postfix mail system is currently running.
This does introduce a non-negligible delay in startup
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:40:16AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
start Start the Postfix mail system. This also runs the configuration
check described above.
status Indicate if the Postfix mail system is currently running.
This does introduce a non-negligible
Le 06/03/2012 17:48, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:40:16AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
start Start the Postfix mail system. This also runs the configuration
check described above.
status Indicate if the Postfix mail system is currently
On 3/6/2012 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
- Turning on chroot by default. Many Debian etc. users get into
trouble when they make an innocuous configuration change to the
SMTP daemon. Postfix has no defense for this brain damage.
Is this the syslog socket issue Wietse or another issue?
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:48:35AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
I think that making everyone wait would be another example of
well-meaning people doing things that give Postfix a bad reputation.
postfix start exits successfully but postfix doesn't work, resulting in a
WTF
On 03/06/12 14:10, Wietse Venema wrote:
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:48:35AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
I think that making everyone wait would be another example of
well-meaning people doing things that give Postfix a bad reputation.
postfix start exits successfully but postfix
Michael Orlitzky:
backup2 ~ # killall -9 /usr/lib64/postfix/master
backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix start
* WARNING: postfix has already been started
That is a bug in an init script, and is the responsibility
of the OS-specific maintainer. Postfix does not provide
init/upstart/systemd
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:30:59PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on
Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and
figures out how to deal with it quickly:
backup2 ~ # /etc/init.d/postfix stop
*
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:30:59PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
either. Right now the problem is easy to understand: half of the time on
Gentoo, the startup OK is meaningless. Everyone knows this, and
figures out how to deal with it quickly:
backup2 ~ #
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:01:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
So you need a way for postfix start that returns status 0 if the
master(8) daemon initalizes successfully, and non-zero otherwise.
Correct.
I think this can be done by starting the master as a foreground
process. The foreground
On 06/03/2012 21:10, Wietse Venema wrote:
Eray Aslan:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:48:35AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
I think that making everyone wait would be another example of
well-meaning people doing things that give Postfix a bad reputation.
postfix start exits successfully but postfix
to
be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log.
by writing the bug i do hope this simple guy that will look for the
problem will understand what could he missed.
Thanks,
Eliezer
So the benefit is not clear-cut.
Eliezer Croitoru:
i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is
this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to
be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log.
Sorry, only the master daemon knows that it can't access
will say that it is still running and the only way i
managed to make postfix work is to fix the master.cf and rebooting
the machine\os.
You need to provide the proper information to debug a possible bug.
Start here: http://www.postfix.com/DEBUG_README.html
will do.
i will try to be more accurate next
On 07/03/2012 02:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
Eliezer Croitoru:
i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is
this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to
be checked using the postfix check method on terminal and not only on log.
Sorry, only the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:01:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
So you need a way for postfix start that returns status 0 if the
master(8) daemon initalizes successfully, and non-zero otherwise.
I think this can be done by starting the master as a foreground
process. The foreground master
copies of these header are added to message.
Problem appears only for this two headers.
Can this be a bug in Postfix (for example, something with substring search)?
I don't have the input before it is modified, so I need a copy of
the output after it is modified.
Wietse
Here is excerpt from
of these header are added to message.
Problem appears only for this two headers.
Can this be a bug in Postfix (for example, something with substring search)?
This was caused by a length check against the wrong string (the
header name that was found, instead of the header name that was
wanted).
I
Hello,
I found a small bug in the online documentation on this page:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
The option message_size_limit is described as:
The maximal size in bytes of a message[..],
This is wrong and should be:
The maximal size in bits of a message[..].
Regards
Sven
sven.kie...@compact.de:
Hello,
I found a small bug in the online documentation on this page:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
The option message_size_limit is described as:
The maximal size in bytes of a message[..],
The documentation is correct.
As the documentation says
Am 13.10.2011 14:35, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org:
sven.kie...@compact.de:
Hello,
I found a small bug in the online documentation on this page:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
The option message_size_limit is described as:
The maximal size in bytes of a message
sven.kie...@compact.de:
We clearly have set up a maximum message size limit of the latter (2.5
MiB). I don't get mail out of this system bigger than that.
Prove it. Show some concrete evidence. Without that, no-one
can tell you what mistake you are making.
As per the mailing list welcome
Am 13.10.2011 17:00, schrieb sven.kie...@compact.de:
Maybe I don't get it, or you use different representations of what is an byte
or KB instead
of KiB? If I'm seeing something wrong please point me to my failure. :-)
you are missing the fact that e-mail is a text-only protocol and so
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 17:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
... depending on the attachment the overhead can be very different
Base64 always encodes 3 original bytes into 4 base64-bytes, so the
factor to calculate the effective size for an attachment in an email is
always 4/3*original_size.
Of
Stefan Palme:
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 17:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
... depending on the attachment the overhead can be very different
Base64 always encodes 3 original bytes into 4 base64-bytes, so the
factor to calculate the effective size for an attachment in an email is
always
On 2011-10-13 11:00 AM, sven.kie...@compact.de sven.kie...@compact.de
wrote:
Maybe I don't get it, or you use different representations of what is an
byte or KB instead of KiB? If I'm seeing something wrong please point me
to my failure. :-)
Or maybe you failed to read the welcome message when
Hello,
if you put this in file: virtual (used for virtual transport)
___
t...@example.com t...@example.com, i...@example.com
___
And you have Both Virtual Mailboxes:
kianoush:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Hello,
if you put this in file: virtual (used for virtual transport)
___
t...@example.com t...@example.com, i...@example.com
Hi!
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided to
give the old sleep trick a try. Only for unknown hosts, ofc...
The
On 7/7/2011 11:20 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
Hi!
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided to
give the old sleep trick
On 7/7/2011 11:20 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of
the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided
to
give the old sleep trick
Hi,
just for info, it has been fixed on saturday.
postconf | grep mail_ver
mail_version = 2.5.6
rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-2.5.6-5.6.1
Nessus scan is fine.
Best regards,
Alexander
Hello,
I am running SLES 11 SP1 (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server). After all
patches are applied from standard update Novell sources it seems to me
that STARTTLS bug is still unfixed.
postconf | grep mail_version
mail_version = 2.5.6
rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-devel-2.5.6-5.4.21
postfix
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:57:19AM +0200, Alexander Gr?ner wrote:
I am running SLES 11 SP1 (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server). After all patches
are applied from standard update Novell sources it seems to me that
STARTTLS bug is still unfixed.
mail_version = 2.5.6
Unless they (SuSE
The right forum is a SuSE support forum.
Ok, I will go there.
Your server needs to
be patched if either:
- remote sites verify your certificate when sending email over TLS.
This is the case on my server.
Thanks for the answer anyway :-)
Best regards,
Alexander
Zitat von Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:57:19AM +0200, Alexander Gr?ner wrote:
I am running SLES 11 SP1 (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server). After all patches
are applied from standard update Novell sources it seems to me that
STARTTLS bug is still
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:31:18PM +0200, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
This is the recommended submission setup and the most common MUAs
(Thunderbird, Outlook, Evolution etc.) will not ignore certificate
verification failures, no?
So every public submission service correctly setup is
Hi,
just learned about http://support.novell.com/security/cve/ and
especially http://support.novell.com/security/cve/CVE-2011-0411.html.
Just for future requests...
Answer from Novell The updates for this issue are in QA and will be
released to the update channels in the next week.
Fine.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 01:56:05PM +0200, Alexander Gr?ner wrote:
Hi,
just learned about http://support.novell.com/security/cve/ and especially
http://support.novell.com/security/cve/CVE-2011-0411.html.
Just for future requests...
Answer from Novell The updates for this issue are in QA
On 04/15/2011 01:58 AM, Alexander Grüner wrote:
The right forum is a SuSE support forum.
Ok, I will go there.
The postfix shipped in SLES is usually a bit stale anyway. I typically
grab a postfix source rpm from suse factory and rebuild it on SLES.
Here are some newish packages
will
show them just straight from the mail.log file:
mail.log.2:940:Mar 20 18:00:52 kif postfix/cleanup[15700]: 0097C3D8F3:
message-id=5eade3eb1528ac2f59104cba582ef5e9
mail.log.2:41222:Mar 24 12:49:45 kif postfix/cleanup[808]: EFA813D790:
message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99
This is a bug
]: EFA813D790:
message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99
This is a bug?
Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are
more equal than others.
--
Viktor.
.2:41222:Mar 24 12:49:45 kif postfix/cleanup[808]: EFA813D790:
message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99
This is a bug?
Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are
more equal than others.
So it is a case of shit in, shit out??
Regards
Andreas
smime.p7s
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:34:46PM +0200, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are
more equal than others.
So it is a case of shit in, shit out??
Postfix logs the content of the Message-Id header as received. To
determine whether a
Thanks for the answer. Things are clearer now.
message-id=468a9c3f8b21b9d8fe7af2181f4ddd99
This is a bug?
Postfix logs the content of the message-id header. Some messages are
more equal than others.
11:02:24 mx postfix/postscreen[9697]:
cache /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db full cleanup: retained=0
dropped=0 entries
Mar 10 11:04:26 mx postfix/postscreen[9697]: close
database /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db: No such file or
directory (possible Berkeley DB bug)
Mar 10 11:12:08 mx
On 3/10/2011 6:58 AM, Mark Alan wrote:
While using Postfix 2.8.1 + Ubuntu 10.10, after enabling postscreen the
system seems to be working well (sends and receives email without any
apparent problems) but has sporadic errors as shown bellow (without
any other errors or warnings).
This has been
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/7/2011 2:08 PM:
CERT/CC announces a flaw today in multiple STARTTLS implementations.
This problem was silently fixed in Postfix 2.8 and 2.9. Updates
for Postfix 2.[4-7] are made available via the usual channels.
Nice catch Wietse! Normally I'd follow that with
Hi there!
How severe this bug is?
I'm running few Zimbra servers and seems like it's there:
% telnet 0 25
220 myzimbra ESMTP Postfix
starttls
220 2.0.0 Ready to start TLS
% telnet 0 587
220 myzimbra ESMTP Postfix
starttls
220 2.0.0 Ready to start TLS
Should I disable it for now
Walter Smith:
Hi there!
?
How severe this bug is?
Please read the announcement, section overview and impact.
http://www.postfix.org/CVE-2011-0411.html
This is not as big a problem as it may appear to be. The reason
is that many SMTP client applications don't verify server TLS
certificates
--On March 8, 2011 10:20:21 AM -0800 Walter Smith whatis...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hi there!
How severe this bug is?
The CVE gave it 1.39 out of a possible 180 points. Or 2%.
It will of course be addressed in a later Zimbra release.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:26:47PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On March 8, 2011 10:20:21 AM -0800 Walter Smith whatis...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hi there!
How severe this bug is?
The CVE gave it 1.39 out of a possible 180 points. Or 2%.
It will of course be addressed in a later
CERT/CC announces a flaw today in multiple STARTTLS implementations.
This problem was silently fixed in Postfix 2.8 and 2.9. Updates
for Postfix 2.[4-7] are made available via the usual channels.
Wietse
Plaintext injection in multiple implementations of STARTTLS
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:08:09 am Wietse Venema wrote:
This is a writeup about a flaw that I found recently, and that
existed in multiple implementations of SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol) over TLS (Transport Layer Security) including my Postfix
open source mailserver. I give an overview of
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:59:15PM +1100, Brad Hards wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:08:09 am Wietse Venema wrote:
This is a writeup about a flaw that I found recently, and that
existed in multiple implementations of SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol) over TLS (Transport Layer Security)
Hello all,
if you specify a non default config_directory variable when using
postfix-install script, you'll have this error :
postfix: fatal: open /etc/postfix/main.cf: No such file or directory
To solve it, in the last line of postfix-install, replace :
bin/postfix post-install
Matthieu Ambrosy:
Hello all,
if you specify a non default config_directory variable when using
postfix-install script, you'll have this error :
postfix: fatal: open /etc/postfix/main.cf: No such file or directory
This is not supported. It breaks local submission via /usr/sbin/sendmail,
Yeah, sendmail doesnt work anymore with other main.cf location, I noticed
that so I have removed the config_directory variable.
Thanks for the DEF_CONFIG_DIR tip.
Regards,
Matthieu.
2011/3/4 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
Matthieu Ambrosy:
Hello all,
if you specify a non default
Hi,
Not sure if this is a bug or not, but thought I'd mention it, as I
noticed it recently when investigating an intrusion attempt (it was an
attempt to exploit this vulnerability in spamassassin-milter:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-03/0139.html)
I have root
Already fixed early 2010. You need to upgrade to Postfix 2.8 or
later. I don't know if this will be back-ported to earlier releases.
Wietse
20100422
Workaround (introduced: postfix-19990906 a.k.a. Postfix
0.8.0). The Postfix local delivery agent did not properly
Le 05/11/2010 10:03, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
[hash/cdb/...]
- if parent_domain_matches_subdomains contains smtpd_access: here, the
search list is
S = ( lab1.lab2.lab3.example.com, lab2.lab3.example.com,
lab3.example.com ..., com, 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3, 1.2, 1 )
so postfix will search for each
Le 05/11/2010 09:48, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
On 2010-11-04 23:36:04 -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Vincent Lefevrevinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Yes, it will generate *some* lookups, but it doesn't say exactly
*which* lookups. That was precisely my question.
On 2010-11-04 23:36:04 -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Yes, it will generate *some* lookups, but it doesn't say exactly
*which* lookups. That was precisely my question.
- client hostname (reverse dns hostname)
-
On 2010-11-05 06:21:20 +0100, mouss wrote:
in short, for each map, you have multiple parameters:
- the map type
- the search context (check_client_access, check_sender_acces, ...
transport, virtual_alias_maps, ... etc)
- the list of search keys
[...]
Thanks a lot for this very detailed
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 11/5/2010 4:03 AM:
Testing the tld alone seems to be excluded by the access(5) man page,
which only documents domain.tld, i.e. the pattern must contain
at least one dot. Is it an error in the man page (which could say
domain instead, like in Section Email address
those two notation
forms differ and why author has written one idea in two sentences.
Check your English ;)
And next time behavior doesn't match your expectations, you
might get more sympathy if your message starts with please
clarify this for me rather than serious bug.
If behavior doesn't
Le 04/11/2010 05:24, Noel Jones a écrit :
On 11/3/2010 11:07 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
BTW, so, there is no way to match only subdomains (by that, I mean
all possible subdomains, but not the domain itself) without changing
parent_domain_matches_subdomains?
That's correct with indexed tables.
on the value of
parent_domain_matches_subdomains
Otherwise is clearly related to the last part of the previous
statement. If it is unclear, ask for clarification. Crying loud
serious bug because your language interpretation is different from
others is not helpful at all.
Regards
Andreas
, and not in case they think they
unsterstand.
Also, it's completelly unstated that .domain.tld notation doesn't work
if smtpd_access_maps is listed in parent_domain_matches_subdomains.
Crying loud
serious bug because your language interpretation is different from
others is not helpful at all
configuration setting. What the
man page says in THIS case is: The pattern domain.tld also matches
subdomains where the pattern domain.tld can be .twitter.com for
instance.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my reasoning.
If it is unclear, ask for clarification. Crying loud serious bug
Vincent Lefevre:
On 2010-11-04 10:44:34 +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
The access(5) man page says:
domain.tld
Matches domain.tld.
The pattern domain.tld also matches subdomains, but only
when the string smtpd_access_maps is listed in
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 10:56:57AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Vincent Lefevre:
On 2010-11-04 10:44:34 +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
The access(5) man page says:
domain.tld
Matches domain.tld.
The pattern domain.tld also matches subdomains,
On 2010-11-04 10:28:00 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 10:56:57AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
I can replace that Otherwise... sentence by a separate list item.
domain.tld
Matches domain.tld.
The pattern domain.tld also matches
Le 04/11/2010 05:07, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
On 2010-11-03 22:55:59 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I'm so sorry you lost your twitter post.
Actually I might have lost other mail (though this is a bit unlikely)
since I was generally using an initial dot.
a good idea is to include both dotted and
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 05:02:25PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I still think that it's a bit ambiguous, because I was seeing
.domain.tld as a subcase of domain.tld
This objection is spurious, and constitutes trolling. Please do not feed
the trolls.
For the record, elementary logic:
If
On 2010-11-04 17:18:17 +0100, mouss wrote:
otherwise, you can do whatever you want with pcre:
/\.example\.com$/OK
or with sql or ldap.
For pcre, the man page is not clear. It says:
Each pattern is a regular expression that is applied to the entire
string being looked up.
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 11/4/2010 6:04 PM:
On 2010-11-04 17:18:17 +0100, mouss wrote:
otherwise, you can do whatever you want with pcre:
/\.example\.com$/OK
or with sql or ldap.
For pcre, the man page is not clear. It says:
Each pattern is a regular expression that is
On 2010-11-04 19:06:57 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_sender_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_recipient_accesspcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
As you can see, this is defined by the smtpd_foo_restriction you target
the
Vincent Lefevre:
On 2010-11-04 19:06:57 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_sender_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
As you can see, this is defined by the smtpd_foo_restriction
On 11/05/2010 01:26 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-11-04 19:06:57 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_sender_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/filter.pcre
As you can see, this is
On 2010-11-04 20:33:11 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
check_client_access searches the address and domain with ALL lookup
table types. It just doesn't do the substring lookups with PCRE,
REGEXP and CIDR.
If I understand correctly, there's another difference: in the default
table format, the
On 2010-11-05 01:38:37 +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
*REGULAR EXPRESSION TABLES*
This section describes how the table lookups change when
the table is given in the form of regular expressions. For
a description of regular expression lookup table syntax,
On 11/05/2010 01:57 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2010-11-05 01:38:37 +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
*REGULAR EXPRESSION TABLES*
This section describes how the table lookups change when
the table is given in the form of regular expressions. For
a description of
On 2010-11-05 02:29:53 +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
If you combine
Each pattern is a regular expression that is applied to the entire string
being looked up.
with
*
check_client_access /type:table
http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html/*
Search the specified access
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Reinaldo de Carvalho
reinal...@gmail.com wrote:
check_client_access type:table
Search the specified access database for the client hostname,
parent domains, client IP address, or networks obtained by stripping
least significant octets. See the access(5)
201 - 300 of 378 matches
Mail list logo
