that's the nice solution. thanks.
>
> Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> >
> >
> > I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
> >
> > How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domain
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
> Hello
>
> I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
> How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domain in sender?
> I know I can setup sieve script to discard messages from that
> domain, but this method sounds rather r
Hello
I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domain in sender?
I know I can setup sieve script to discard messages from that domain, but this
method sounds rather rigid.
Or shall I install rspamd etc to make a reject policy
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/n
. 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 trash
can.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email
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
be
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
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
autom
handle than an automatic
> response. IMHO.
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.
Bastian
--
Witch! Witch! They'll burn ya!
-- Hag, "Tomorrow is Yesterda
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
an
automatic response. IMHO.
A better way would be to set the From: address to someone that will
actually respond from your organization (e.g. info@, help@, etc).
@Peter
My /etc/postfix/no-reply_reject contains lines like:
do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
reply
than an automatic
> response. IMHO.
>
> @Peter
> My /etc/postfix/no-reply_reject contains lines like:
> do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
> reply to this email.
>
> Regards
>
___
Postfix-us
contains lines like:
do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
reply to this email.
Regards
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
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
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
>e
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
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 m
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 Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 01:41:44PM -0400, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> Turns out it's more complicated than I thought, they want a restricted
> sending address to be able to send only to particular recipients.
> Suggestions?
If the allowed recipients are the same for all restricted
c/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/restricted_senders
smtpd_restriction_classes = joe_user_acl
joe_user_acl =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/joe_user_recipients, reject
/etc/postfix/restricted_senders:
It appears that Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
said:
If one of recipients wants to accept mail from a sender while another
recipient doesn't, teoretically you can reject that sender at recipient
level, but that complicates configuration (but it's possible).
This would mean
It appears that Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
said:
>If one of recipients wants to accept mail from a sender while another
>recipient doesn't, teoretically you can reject that sender at recipient
>level, but that complicates configuration (but it's possible).
>Thi
On 6/16/2024 9:06 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
# Don't indent text between IF and ENDIF.
IF /^MAIL FROM:/
/^MAIL FROM:/ QUIT
/^MAIL FROM:/ QUIT
...
ENDIF
Seems like if this is talking to a real MTA this would be a
connection amplifier. The sending MTA would see this as a
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:06:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > > > I think postscreen can block them easily.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the postscreen
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:06:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > > I think postscreen can block them easily.
> >
> > I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
> >
John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > I think postscreen can block them easily.
>
> I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
> addresses. Am I missing something?
That is a bad suggestion, please ignore.
> I do see
John R. Levine via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-16 15:18:
I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about
mail addresses. Am I missing something?
postscreen is not smtpd
I do see smtpd_command_filter. How about if I map MAIL FROM:
to QUIT?
so this needs smtpd
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
I think postscreen can block them easily.
I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
addresses. Am I missing something?
I do see smtpd_command_filter. How about if I map MAIL FROM: to QUIT?
Regards,
John Levine,
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 07:06:43PM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-06-15 18:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> > People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
> > don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to
On 15.06.24 12:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the SMTP MAIL FROM
On 2024-06-15 18:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the SMTP MAIL FROM
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:14:01PM +0200, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
> don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
> as possible without running it through anti-spam milters
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the SMTP MAIL FROM command. What's the best way to do this?
The list is short
On 5/28/24 5:39 AM, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_delay_reject to no
I had it at yes.
Changed it.
--john
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 28/05/2024 11:39, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users
wrote:
For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding
other other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic
ip ranges from
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding other
other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic ip ranges from
which you would normally expect to get connections
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding other
> other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic ip ranges from
> which you would normally expect to get
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block
On 27/05/2024 13:31, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
On 5/27/24 4:13 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via
On 5/27/24 4:13 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block
On 25/05/2024 20:50, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
On 5/25/24 11:22 AM, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did
On 5/25/24 3:54 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
John Hill via Postfix-users:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
Is this the same thing?
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block xbl
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> > postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
> Is this the same thing?
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block xbl listed clients with postscreen, one would configure
On 5/25/24 11:22 AM, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port
587, for users
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
for users access.
I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587.
On 5/24/24 9:33 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24.05.24 07:36, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
What command do you use to reset the connection?
no command, just rule in OUTPUT chain:
1710 649K REJECT 6 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0
0.0.0.0/0
On 24.05.24 07:36, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
What command do you use to reset the connection?
no command, just rule in OUTPUT chain:
1710 649K REJECT 6-- * * 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0
tcp spt:25 match-set block-smtp dst reject-with icmp-port
What command do you use to reset the connection?
On 5/24/24 6:18 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 23.05.24 21:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I use Fail2Ban to block the failed IP. The script writes it into the
nftables table immediately.
I think this keeps
On 23.05.24 21:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I use Fail2Ban to block the failed IP. The script writes it into the
nftables table immediately.
I think this keeps Postfix waiting and times out, not a big deal. Is
there a cli that my bash script could force disconnect the ip from
Will do it. Tonight.
Thanks
On May 23, 2024 9:11 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
> the conversation!
>
> I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
> the conversation!
>
> I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
> for users access.
>
> I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587. Funny how a China,
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
for users access.
I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587. Funny how a China,
US, Argentina, you name it, hosts, will
Dnia 4.02.2024 o godz. 11:00:39 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> > Well, I'm an old school type... :) I prefer to ssh to the server and launch
> > mutt or something similar to access my mail :)
>
> That's fine, I also use mutt (in fact when replying to this message),
> but for me mutt
On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 10:17:45PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> >
> > These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store that
> > is not tied directly to any login account they may or
Hellow Jaroslaw,
On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 22:17 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> pisze:
> >
> > These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store
> > that
> > is not tied directly to any login
Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store that
> is not tied directly to any login account they may or may not have.
> Perhaps they authenticate to Dovecot via PAM, but the mail store should
>
On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 04:57:05PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> > The "local" transport is a legacy Sendmail-compatibilty interface,
> > and should generally be avoided.
>
> Why avoided? If you have local Unix users on your server, and you want those
> users to receive mail,
se should anything on the outside be directing mail directly to
> zimbra.example.org, and it is firewalled so only our border MXes can talk to
> it.
>
> Is there a way to reject mail destined to an internal domain (like
> zimbra.example.org) such that only our internal machines can deliver
Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 10:33:58 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> The "local" transport is a legacy Sendmail-compatibilty interface,
> and should generally be avoided.
Why avoided? If you have local Unix users on your server, and you want those
users to receive mail, this is the most
org route to
> zimbra.example.org). We have other domains under example.org such as
> list servers, ticket systems, and the like, many of which have
> example.org addresses pointing at them.
>
> Is there a way to reject mail destined to an internal domain (like
> zimbra.example.org) such that onl
such as list servers, ticket systems, and the like, many of
which have example.org addresses pointing at them.
In no case should anything on the outside be directing mail directly to
zimbra.example.org, and it is firewalled so only our border MXes can talk to it.
Is there a way to reject mail destined
Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users:
> Hi Jaroslaw,
>
> In this context, it's not about the ability to recognize the
> message, as unique IDs and postfix long queue IDs can handle that
> effectively within the 200-character limit. The primary concern
> is having the capability to log full header
:01:49
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 23:21:10 Gerald Galster via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> As the amount of email increases it can be difficult to distinguish mails
> to or from a corresponden
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 23:21:10 Gerald Galster via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> As the amount of email increases it can be difficult to distinguish mails
> to or from a correspondent. In this case it would help a lot to display
> the subject as well but that's not part of envelope data. Therefore
: "postfix-users"
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Januar 2024 23:21:10
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via
>
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via
> Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> Using a Milter is an option, but it often involves correlating
>> information from both the milter process and the log for a
>> comprehensive view.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Using a Milter is an option, but it often involves correlating
> information from both the milter process and the log for a
> comprehensive view.
Everything of interest can be added as a message header.
>
Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:10:03PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Initially, I experimented with a Milter for logging the required
> headers, but I found that employing a larger %s printf value
Claus Assmann via Postfix-users:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > 1) You can log full headers with a Milter. You will run into the
> > length limit of the syslog() client (historically, 2 kBytes) before
> > the Milter protocol limit (64 kBytes) which is less than
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> 1) You can log full headers with a Milter. You will run into the
> length limit of the syslog() client (historically, 2 kBytes) before
> the Milter protocol limit (64 kBytes) which is less than the Postfix
Just FYI: That limit can be
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:10:03PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Initially, I experimented with a Milter for logging the required
> headers, but I found that employing a larger %s printf value proved to
> be a more efficient solution. However, I'd like to point out that
a clearer perspective.
Best regards,
Matthias Schneider
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
An: "Postfix users"
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Januar 2024 14:37:34
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT
1) You can log full headers with a Milter. You will run into the
length limit of the syslog() client (historically, 2 kBytes) before
the Milter protocol limit (64 kBytes) which is less than the Postfix
header_size_limit (default: 102400).
2) You can uniqely identify all Postfix transactions with
och, 24. Januar 2024 12:18:54
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 08:20:33 Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> Upon reviewing the code, it appears there are only one limit on
>
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 08:20:33 Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> Upon reviewing the code, it appears there are only one limit on
> vstring_sprintf, three limits on msg_info in the code, whereas the rest of
> the %.200s limits are present on msg_warn lines. My request stems from
>
Mail -
Von: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
An: "Postfix users"
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2024 15:40:45
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
First, there are format string limits all over Postfix. As a
First, there are format string limits all over Postfix. As a matter
of principle I would not make a special case for headers.
Second, the existing 200 byte limit should be plenty sufficient to
uniqiely identify every past, present, and future email message in
this universe and in several other
to reject such messages submitted to us,
that the email client shows an error as it’s done, when, for example,
users submit a message to a colleague at our institute, and we now
that address does not exist, because the account was closed or it does
not exist.
Could you recommend a way how to best set
with this approach, but
having the ability to log and receive the complete header key/values is crucial
for my use case.
While Postfix already has a feature in the header_checks to log header
information (info/warn/reject), it becomes unreliable due to the 200-character
limit. This limit poses a challenge
Matthias Schneider
>
> - Urspr?ngliche Mail -
> Von: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
> An: "Postfix users"
> Gesendet: Montag, 22. Januar 2024 16:14:03
> Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
> INFO/WARN/REJECT H
.
Best regards,
Matthias Schneider
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Wietse Venema via Postfix-users"
An: "Postfix users"
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Januar 2024 16:14:03
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
Sorry,
Sorry, Postfix logging must not be used as if it is a reliable
channel for message processing. Postfx goes through great effort
to guarantee that message loss won't happen unless a file system
is damaged or unless a message is forcibly deleted from the queue.
There are no such guarantees for
Dear Postfix Developers,
I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out to address a concern
related to the limit for the header key/value string in the "info", "warn" and
"reject" header_check log message during the cleanup process.
The current 200-chara
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 09:39:06AM +0100, Paul Menzel via Postfix-users wrote:
> pg.de is currently a parked domain, so our users will not going to
> email there, and I would like to reject such messages submitted to us,
> that the email client shows an error as it’s done, when, fo
to
colleagues with a typo, for example, xy.pg.de with a missing *m*. pg.de
is currently a parked domain, so our users will not going to email
there, and I would like to reject such messages submitted to us, that
the email client shows an error as it’s done, when, for example, users
submit a message
fyi
if SpamAssassin's in use in your Postfix message flow, then its TextCat plugin,
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/4.0.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_TextCat.html
does a decent job of detecting many langs. good enough for scoring but NOT for
outright policy reject, here
On 4/18/23 23:38, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:33:36AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> I got a lot of spams (20+ every day) like the following for which i even
>> don't know what language they were.
>>
>
>> مميز المنتدى العربي الثالث
>
> The
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:33:36AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> I got a lot of spams (20+ every day) like the following for which i even
> don't know what language they were.
>
> مميز المنتدى العربي الثالث
The script is Arabic. Language is harder for an MTA to deduce. A
priori
On 2023-04-19 10:32, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 02:54:22AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users
wrote:
How to reject messages by languages?
For example, only English, Germany and Chinese messages will be
accepted. All others should be rejected.
Email
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 02:54:22AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> How to reject messages by languages?
> For example, only English, Germany and Chinese messages will be
> accepted. All others should be rejected.
Email messages almost never carry language information, t
1 - 100 of 1433 matches
Mail list logo
