Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

> On Mar 22, 2021, at 12:53 AM, Phil Biggs wrote: > > Yes, I do have it configured as you say. I suspect that's a carry-over from > an > old pfSense package config I used as the basis for my first postfix server. > > As I don't have any known email problems at present, I'll wait > for 3.6

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

Monday, March 22, 2021, 2:56:17 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: Viktor Dukhovni> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:35:12PM +1100, Phil Biggs wrote: >> Mar 21 14:50:35 postfix/postscreen[3804]: CONNECT from [18.205.72.90]:43471 >> to [192.168.11.2]:25 >> Mar 21 14:50:41 postfix/postscreen[3804]: PASS NEW

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:35:12PM +1100, Phil Biggs wrote: > Mar 21 14:50:35 postfix/postscreen[3804]: CONNECT from [18.205.72.90]:43471 > to [192.168.11.2]:25 > Mar 21 14:50:41 postfix/postscreen[3804]: PASS NEW [18.205.72.90]:43471 > Mar 21 14:50:43 postfix/smtpd[3806]: connect from >

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

- Message from Phil Biggs - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:34:44 +1100 From: Phil Biggs Subject: Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server To: postfix-users@postfix.org Monday, March 22, 2021, 1:49:53 PM, Simon Wilson wrote: Your IP address resolves back to aussiebb: You need

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

Monday, March 22, 2021, 1:49:53 PM, Simon Wilson wrote: > Your IP address resolves back to aussiebb: > You need Aussie BB to setup your reverse DNS. I am with Aussie BB too: Thanks, Simon. Now I see it! I'm using Namecheap's name servers for my domain, with dynamic DNS updates managed by

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

- Message from Simon Wilson - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:49:53 +1000 From: Simon Wilson Reply-To: si...@simonandkate.net Subject: Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server To: postfix-users@postfix.org - Message from Phil Biggs - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:35

Re: Double-bounce to ISP's server

- Message from Phil Biggs - Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:35:12 +1100 From: Phil Biggs Subject: Double-bounce to ISP's server To: postfix-users@postfix.org Hello all, I'm running the postfix-sasl-3.5.8,1 pkg on FreeBSD 12.2-RELEASE-p4 GENERIC Yesterday I plugged my

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Viktor Dukhovni: > > On Feb 12, 2021, at 12:29 PM, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > > > Another somewhat related question is: in order to probe the smtpd needs to > > resolve all virtual etc. mappings which is also done by the cleanup. Is > > this resolution done twice in this case? > > The

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

> On Feb 12, 2021, at 12:29 PM, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > Another somewhat related question is: in order to probe the smtpd needs to > resolve all virtual etc. mappings which is also done by the cleanup. Is this > resolution done twice in this case? The smtpd(8) process does not perform

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > > > > Wietse: > > smtpd does not resolve any mappings. > > If a sender address is mapped to some other virtual alias, how does it know > which address to probe then? The Postfix SMTP daemon generates a probe message for the address in the RCPT TO command. Inside Postfix,

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Judging by the above log example the double-bounce message is processed by the cleanup as well. I guess that's the point where the resolving happens for the prob. Без вирусов. www.avast.ru

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

> > Wietse: > smtpd does not resolve any mappings. If a sender address is mapped to some other virtual alias, how does it know which address to probe then? Без вирусов. www.avast.ru

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > Another somewhat related question is: in order to probe the smtpd needs to > resolve all virtual etc. mappings which is also done by the cleanup. Is > this resolution done twice in this case? smtpd does not resolve any mappings. Instead it makes a safe guess to reject most

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Have read through the pickup(8) and cleanup(8) docs and understood the workflow as follows. When a local message is sent by sendmail it lands into the maildrop directory. The pickup daemon then feeds it into the cleanup one. The latter is responsible for all sorts of envelope and header

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > > > > Wietse: > > The address can be transformed > > with canonical_maps, virtual_alias_maps, it may be routed to a > > different system with transport_maps, and it may be aliased with > > /etc/aliases to some other local or remote address > > All these things apply to

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

> > Wietse: The address can be transformed > with canonical_maps, virtual_alias_maps, it may be routed to a > different system with transport_maps, and it may be aliased with > /etc/aliases to some other local or remote address All these things apply to locally sent messages as well, don't they?

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent > From:u...@mydomain.com. > When the email is sent directly from mail.mydomain.com there is no probe, > right? reject_unverified_recipient etc. do not care where mail comes from, or where it is being sent to. > But

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

> On Feb 11, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent > From:u...@mydomain.com. This is an smtpd(8)/access(5) feature, and so only applies when email is received via SMTP and the restriction in question is applied to the

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent From:u...@mydomain.com. When the email is sent directly from mail.mydomain.com there is no probe, right? But when the message is sent from another server that uses mydomain.com as relay then the probe is done, in which case Postfix probes

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > Let me put it this way: does Postfix do probe for outgoing mail? reject_unverified_recipient and reject_unverified_sender make no such distinction. That is a feature, not a bug. reject_unverified_recipient has been used on internet gateways that have no complete table of

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Let me put it this way: does Postfix do probe for outgoing mail? чт, 11 февр. 2021 г. в 21:35, Wietse Venema : > Eugene Podshivalov: > > I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one. > > Example from logs: > > > > > postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=, > > >

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one. > Example from logs: > > > postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=, > > size=269, nrcpt=1 (queue active) > > postfix/local[20230]: 9AE7A3F56E: to=, *relay=local*, > > delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0.01/0/0,

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one. Example from logs: > postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=, > size=269, nrcpt=1 (queue active) > postfix/local[20230]: 9AE7A3F56E: to=, *relay=local*, > delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0.01/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=deliverable

Re: double-bounce check applied to itself

Eugene Podshivalov: > When reject_unverified_sender param is set and an email is sent on behalf > of the server the double-bounce check is still performed (i.e. sent to > itself). What is 'the double-bounce check'? Postfix probes use a sender address that does not receive email. There is even a

FW: RE: Double-Bounce

In order of messages.  ( i got 11 message for 1 postfix list mail ).  I only see this these when . 1) someone tries to mail out of my domainname. 2) when i mail the postfix list.   I never figured this out, why this happens at the postfix list.     This is an authentication failure report for

Re: Double-Bounce

On 2018-09-14 11:11, Benny Pedersen wrote: B. Reino skrev den 2018-09-14 10:52: So in a way this message is just a test, but hopefully also a clarification :) Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=bbmk.org

Re: Double-Bounce

B. Reino skrev den 2018-09-14 11:02: Well I guess the above test failed :( Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=bbmk.org Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbmk.org header.i=@bbmk.org header.b=sOJs04Hw;

Re: Double-Bounce

B. Reino skrev den 2018-09-14 10:52: So in a way this message is just a test, but hopefully also a clarification :) Authentication-Results: linode.junc.eu; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=bbmk.org header.i=@bbmk.org header.b=I6ED3eZq; do not sign

RE: Double-Bounce

I had a simular things. .. Waiting for the bounce... Greetz, Louis > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: rei...@bbmk.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] > Namens B. Reino > Verzonden: vrijdag 14 september 2018 10:52 > Aan: postfix-users@postfix.org > Ond

Re: Double-Bounce

On 2018-09-14 10:52, B. Reino wrote: I think the postfix ML is not so "DKIM safe". In my case, it causes my DKIM signature to fail. I have now compared a message sent by me against other messages sent e.g. by Benny Pedersen, and concluded that my configuration (using rspamd) was signing way

Re: Double-Bounce

On 2018-09-14 10:36, Dominic Raferd wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 07:14, Benny Pedersen wrote: Benny Pedersen skrev den 2018-09-14 08:08: Dominic Raferd skrev den 2018-09-14 07:33: On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Julian Opificius wrote: Why is it that my system marks everything from you

Re: Double-Bounce

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 07:14, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Benny Pedersen skrev den 2018-09-14 08:08: > > Dominic Raferd skrev den 2018-09-14 07:33: > >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Julian Opificius > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Why is it that my system marks everything from you as spam, Benny? Is > >>>

Re: Double-Bounce

Benny Pedersen skrev den 2018-09-14 08:08: Dominic Raferd skrev den 2018-09-14 07:33: On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Julian Opificius wrote: Why is it that my system marks everything from you as spam, Benny? Is it your tld? I've added you to my address book, but my server keeps spitting you

Re: Double-Bounce

Dominic Raferd skrev den 2018-09-14 07:33: On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Julian Opificius wrote: Why is it that my system marks everything from you as spam, Benny? Is it your tld? I've added you to my address book, but my server keeps spitting you out. Because the domain that he uses to

Re: Double-Bounce

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Julian Opificius wrote: > > Why is it that my system marks everything from you as spam, Benny? Is it > your tld? I've added you to my address book, but my server keeps > spitting you out. Because the domain that he uses to send emails through this mailing list has

Re: Double-Bounce

Julian Opificius skrev den 2018-09-14 01:28: I'm not using Postfix, I'm running SME9. ask on another maillist then

Re: Double-Bounce

Robert Wolfe (Ubuntu): > Hi all!? I am getting messages in my logs where postfix is doing its > double-bounce email thing. Are there any telepathic people on the list? Wietse > ? I am trying to send email to an email server > sitting behind my mail filter appliance (eFA) which routes

Re: Double-Bounce

Why is it that my system marks everything from you as spam, Benny? Is it your tld? I've added you to my address book, but my server keeps spitting you out. I'm not using Postfix, I'm running SME9. Any clues? On 9/13/2018 6:13 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: Robert Wolfe (Ubuntu) skrev den

Re: Double-Bounce

Robert Wolfe (Ubuntu) skrev den 2018-09-14 00:43: It seems messages get through to one of the users on my mail server, just not to me, which generates the double-bounce@ email which is totally annoying. more info is needed to help more

Re: double bounce messages 'from'

On 19 January 2017 at 14:30, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Wietse Venema: > > Dominic Raferd: > > > On 16 January 2017 at 15:11, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > > > > Dominic Raferd: > > > > > One of the few remaining issues on my postfix server is that > >

Re: double bounce messages 'from'

Wietse Venema: > Dominic Raferd: > > On 16 January 2017 at 15:11, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > > Dominic Raferd: > > > > One of the few remaining issues on my postfix server is that > > > > double-bounce messages don't come from the 'right' envelope sender. > > > > > > man

Re: double bounce messages 'from'

Dominic Raferd: > On 16 January 2017 at 15:11, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > Dominic Raferd: > > > One of the few remaining issues on my postfix server is that > > > double-bounce messages don't come from the 'right' envelope sender. > > > > man 5 postconf | less

Re: double bounce messages 'from'

On 16 January 2017 at 15:11, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Dominic Raferd: > > One of the few remaining issues on my postfix server is that > > double-bounce messages don't come from the 'right' envelope sender. > > man 5 postconf | less '+/^double_bounce_sender' > > This also is

Re: double bounce messages 'from'

Dominic Raferd: > One of the few remaining issues on my postfix server is that > double-bounce messages don't come from the 'right' envelope sender. man 5 postconf | less '+/^double_bounce_sender' This also is the default for address_verify_sender. Wietse