PGNet Dev:
> I've got a legitimate sender, FedEx, sending expected, automated emails,
> that's got a missing RDNS PTR record on their sending host. For my config,
> Postfix currently rejects is with a 450:
>
> Apr 1 16:22:11 mx postfix/postscreen-internal/smtpd[
On 11.11.19 14:27, ratatouille wrote:
Received: from mail.namase.de (s1.bomberg.city [62.173.139.77])
I would like to reject incoming email if dns- and rdns-entries differ.
Does this make sense and how could I achieve this?
they do not differ above. The IP 62.173.139.77, rDNS is s1
Hello!
I believe you can achieve that by this restriction from
"smtpd_client_restrictions" that can be included into the main.cf file:
*reject_unknown_client_hostname* /(with Postfix < 2.3://
// reject_unknown_client)//
// Reject the request when 1) the clie
On 11 Nov 2019, at 8:47, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 11.11.19 14:27, ratatouille wrote:
Received: from mail.namase.de (s1.bomberg.city [62.173.139.77])
I would like to reject incoming email if dns- and rdns-entries
differ.
Does this make sense and how could I achieve this?
they do
I (mostly) concur with what Bill Cole says (maybe I'd quibble with the
"2nd clause" part).
Here's a shopworn blade which is in my list of things to rewrite in Python
one day:
http://athena.m3047.net/pub/perl/mail-processing/realmailer.pl.txt
You call it from e.g. procmail, or in other wo
On 11.11.19 09:29, m3047 wrote:
I (mostly) concur with what Bill Cole says (maybe I'd quibble with the
"2nd clause" part).
Here's a shopworn blade which is in my list of things to rewrite in
Python one day:
http://athena.m3047.net/pub/perl/mail-processing/realmailer.pl.txt
You call it fr
> On Nov 11, 2019, at 2:27 PM, ratatouille wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> Received: from mail.namase.de (s1.bomberg.city [62.173.139.77])
>
> I would like to reject incoming email if dns- and rdns-entries differ.
> Does this make sense and how could I achieve
On 11/12/2019 6:33 AM, Dusan Obradovic wrote:
On Nov 11, 2019, at 2:27 PM, ratatouille wrote:
Hello all!
Received: from mail.namase.de (s1.bomberg.city [62.173.139.77])
I would like to reject incoming email if dns- and rdns-entries differ.
Does this make sense and how could I achieve this
> I am a big fan of rigid adherence to rDNS & SPF rules, doing so,
> [...]
Well i don't know what rules are right things. Still i did not setup
SPF. Instead i think User-Agent/X-Mailer are important. In most case
linux softwares[1] have good manners in email world.
Sincerely,
[1] Mutt, ELM, PINE
* 황병희:
> i did not setup SPF. Instead i think User-Agent/X-Mailer are
> important.
The contents of these headers are easily faked, so relying on them is
questionable to me. Also, you will encounter User-Agent headers
generated by various libraries, like Java SMTP implementations. Finally,
what ab
> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> mail.namase.de is the HELO (EHLO) name. You must not reject mail when helo
>> name differs from DNS name (RFC violation).
>
> True.
For the record, it is NOT an RFC violation for the EHLO name to
differ from
On 12 Nov 2019, at 14:26, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
mail.namase.de is the HELO (EHLO) name. You must not reject mail
when helo
name differs from DNS name (RFC violation).
True.
For the record, it is NOT an RFC violation for the EHLO name to
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2019-11-12 12:09:
On 11.11.19 09:29, m3047 wrote:
I (mostly) concur with what Bill Cole says (maybe I'd quibble with the
"2nd clause" part).
Here's a shopworn blade which is in my list of things to rewrite in
Python one day:
http://athena.m3047.net/pub/pe
> On Nov 12, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> For the record, it is NOT an RFC violation for the EHLO name to
>> differ from the name in the PTR record of the connecting IP.
>
> Right and as was stated & I affirmed: it is explicit in RFC5321 S.4.1.4:
>
> An SMTP server MAY verify th
For the record, it is NOT an RFC violation for the EHLO name to
differ from the name in the PTR record of the connecting IP.
On Nov 12, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
Right and as was stated & I affirmed: it is explicit in RFC5321 S.4.1.4:
An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name
[Sorry for late, Ralph.]
Ralph Seichter writes:
> * 황병희:
>
>> i did not setup SPF. Instead i think User-Agent/X-Mailer are
>> important.
>
> The contents of these headers are easily faked, so relying on them is
> questionable to me. Also, you will encounter User-Agent headers
> generated by vari
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 12.11.19 17:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> The correct way to verify that would be to resolve the EHLO name to
>> an address, NOT to resolve the address to a name. This would then
>> find no anomalies with:
>>
>> Received:
On 13 Nov 2019, at 02:30, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 12.11.19 17:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> The correct way to verify that would be to resolve the EHLO name to
>> an address, NOT to resolve the address to a name. This would then
>> find no anomalies with:
>>
>> Received: from ehl
*Everything* short of accepting all mail regardless has false positives.
Rejecting emails for non-existing users, or for domains of which your are
neither the final destination nor a relay, or coming from non-existing
domains, are filtering schemes that have zero false positives. And the
re true now.
Some large and popular mail sending services started some time ago to send
mail in a way that is incompatible with greylisting. Greylisting assumes
that after first 4xx reject, the sending server will retry: a) after a few
minutes; b) from the same IP address. These services: a) retry
l mail" and that have zero false positives.
>
> As for greylisting, it's no more true now.
>
> Some large and popular mail sending services started some time ago to send
> mail in a way that is incompatible with greylisting. Greylisting assumes
> that after first 4xx reject
d some time ago to
send mail in a way that is incompatible with greylisting. Greylisting
assumes that after first 4xx reject, the sending server will retry: a)
after a few minutes; b) from the same IP address. These services: a)
retry immediately, after 5-10 seconds; b) use different IP address
rge and popular mail sending services started some time ago to
send mail in a way that is incompatible with greylisting. Greylisting
assumes that after first 4xx reject, the sending server will retry: a)
after a few minutes; b) from the same IP address. These services: a)
retry immediately, aft
Plain old greylisting can yield many false positives, but recent
implementations of milter-greylist for example will not greylist
messages that validates SPF. It helps *a lot*.
The question is: does it only help "a lot", or is the result "zero false
positives"? I personally don't belie
On 09.06.20 23:41, Nathan Ward wrote:
I am trying to figure out the best way to reject RCPT TO addresses with no
domain part - i.e. "RCPT TO: " or similar. I do not want to rewrite
to $myhostname or $mydomain or similar.
I am on postfix 2.10.
put "reject_non_fqdn_recip
> On 10/06/2020, at 00:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 09.06.20 23:41, Nathan Ward wrote:
>> I am trying to figure out the best way to reject RCPT TO addresses with no
>> domain part - i.e. "RCPT TO: " or similar. I do not want to rewrite
>> t
Nathan Ward:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to figure out the best way to reject RCPT TO addresses with no
> domain part - i.e. "RCPT TO: " or similar. I do not want to rewrite
> to $myhostname or $mydomain or similar.
There is no Postfix setting to allow or deny every possib
On 09.06.20 23:41, Nathan Ward wrote:
I am trying to figure out the best way to reject RCPT TO addresses with no
domain part - i.e. "RCPT TO: " or similar. I do not want to rewrite
to $myhostname or $mydomain or similar.
I am on postfix 2.10.
On 10/06/2020, at 00:07, Matus UHLAR
Wietse Venema:
> Nathan Ward:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am trying to figure out the best way to reject RCPT TO addresses with no
> > domain part - i.e. "RCPT TO: " or similar. I do not want to rewrite
> > to $myhostname or $mydomain or similar.
>
> T
Dnia 10.06.2020 o godz. 00:29:04 Nathan Ward pisze:
>
> Hi - thanks for your reply. I have explored that option, as noted later in
> my message - but I’d like to be able to accept email for user@gtld - where
> there is no dot in the domain, but there is still a domain.
"user@something-with-no-dot
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:29:04AM +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
> > put "reject_non_fqdn_recipient" into your smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> > - if you want to deny everyone from doing that, put it before common
> > permit_mynetworks
> > and permit_sasl_authenticated
>
> Hi - thanks for your reply
PGNet Dev:
> I've set up a postfix instance
>
> [127.0.0.1]:10003 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o syslog_name=postfix/after-filters
> ...
> -o
> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks,no_address_mappings,no_milters
> -o con
On 6/13/20 4:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix has milter_header_checks for message headers
> that are added by a Milter.
yes. that's exactly what I referenced in my OP, and included in my config.
what exactly is your point?
PGNet Dev:
> On 6/13/20 4:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Postfix has milter_header_checks for message headers
> > that are added by a Milter.
>
> yes. that's exactly what I referenced in my OP, and included in my config.
>
> what exactly is your point?
You are disabling the header_checks with r
cody wrote:
> How do i reject incoming e-mail's from remote servers to all local system
> accounts?
> I can list them in a map via smtpd_recipient_restriction but wonder if there
> is an easier way to do that.
One of the standard configurations is as a "null client".
> On Oct 10, 2020, at 10:06 AM, cody wrote:
>
> How do i reject incoming e-mail's from remote servers to all local system
> accounts?
> I can list them in a map via smtpd_recipient_restriction but wonder if there
> is an easier way to do that.
As mentioned in another
On 10/28/2020 11:22 AM, Joey J wrote:
I have the following config:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
reject_unauth_destination
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
check_recipient_access regexp:/etc/postfix/rcptaccess
check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix
To confirm, each table needs an entry like so:
check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/clientaccess
check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/sender_reject_ip
Thank you
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:38 PM Noel Jones wrote:
> On 10/28/2020 11:22 AM, Joey J wrote:
>
> > I have the following config:
> >
On 10/28/2020 1:34 PM, Joey J wrote:
To confirm, each table needs an entry like so:
check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/clientaccess
check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/sender_reject_ip
Thank you
Yes, each individual access table must be proceeded by a
check_*_access statement to tel
@lbutlr:
> Given an email address like admin-...@example.com is it possible to =
> REJECT all email to that address that doesn't contain a header =
> "X-foobar" (or maybe a header that that is "X-foobar: =
> ")?
Postfix built-in support matches one line at
On 07 Jan 2021, at 17:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Similarly, given a email address of "p...@example.com" would it be =
>> possible to reject all emails to that address that did not contain an =
>> extension in the user name?
I should have said to "only all
@lbutlr:
> I should have said to "only allow emails that contain an address =
> extension, any address extension, not a repopulated list."
>
> I know what I was thinking!=20
Use a regexp or pcre table.
/^foo[_+]?@example\.com$/ reject
Wietse
lo. I have problem from cuple of days.
> When DHL try to send me an email, we get
> Mar 10 11:04:06 poczta postfix/cleanup[26141]: EB48B36AABA:
> milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from gateway11b.dhl.com[165.72.200.202]:
> 4.7.1 Try again later; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=
>
> A
zta postfix/cleanup[28321]: 7F2A2352540:
message-id=a977fd00-bf2d-11ed-b354-8f9f1ca3e8dd
Mar 10 11:23:57 poczta postfix/cleanup[28321]: 7F2A2352540:
milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from gateway11d.dhl.com[165.72.200.204]:
4.7.1 Try again later; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
Mar 10 11:23:57 poc
540:
message-id=a977fd00-bf2d-11ed-b354-8f9f1ca3e8dd
Mar 10 11:23:57 poczta postfix/cleanup[28321]: 7F2A2352540:
milter-reject: END-OF-MESSAGE from gateway11d.dhl.com[165.72.200.204]:
4.7.1 Try again later; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
Mar 10 11:23:57 poczta postfix/smtpd[28240]: public/cleanup soc
1:54:43 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; lua;
greylist.lua:348: greylisted until "Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:59:43 GMT", new
record
2023-03-10 11:54:43 #31829(rspamd_proxy) <71bd42>; proxy;
lua_task_set_pre_result: : set pre-result to soft reject: 'Try
again later'
2023-0
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-
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
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
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
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, jo...@t
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
mi
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 smtpd_
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
> > add
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 man
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 non-fa
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 ap
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 rigi
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 domai
t_access cidr:/var/db/dnswl/postfix-dnswl-permit
reject_invalid_helo_hostname
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
reject_unknown_sender_domain
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/access_sender
== access_sender
example.com
I want to make sure that any messages my system sends out always has a
sender of someb...@math.wisc.edu. I am looking at configuring the
smtpd_sender_restrictions directive.
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
hash:/etc/postfix/all_addresses_at_math_wisc_edu,reject
Am I close?
We have a list of blocked users in a hash file like this:
blockedacco...@example.com REJECT
And use it like this:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access_to.hash
The error message generated by postfix when trying to send to this is:
554 5.7.1
fix.
All other mail operations including email to/from my mail client via
courier-imap work fine.
Apr 23 10:27:43 anagram postfix/smtpd[21916]: connect from unknown[::
1]
Apr 23 10:27:43 anagram postfix/smtpd[21916]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[::1]: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access
de
Can I implement smtp_sender_login_maps such a way that
* for selective accountids reject_sender_login_mismatch
* And the for the rest Permit any sender id if authenticated
Ciao
Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
The "unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code" response defaults to 550.
If it is not 550 on your system, somebody altered it from the def
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> > Ciao
> >
> > Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
> > mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
> >
>
> The "unknown_virtual_m
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Ciao
Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
The "unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code" response defaults to
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:33:04 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
> > Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Ciao
> >>>
> >>> Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in vir
2010.06.05. 23:31 keltezéssel, John Peach írta:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Ciao
Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
The "unknown_virtual
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:33:04 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Ciao
Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 05:31:17PM -0400, John Peach wrote:
> soft_bounce is set to yes by default (so that you can correct
> your config before putting it into production).
Not so. Granted that this may have been the OP's problem, but
the Postfix default is "no":
$ /usr/sbin/postconf -d soft_bo
06.06.2010 01:31, John Peach wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
The "unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code" response defaults to 550.
If it is not 550 on your system, somebody altered it from the default.
(I don't see how an undeliverable address could be anything bu
icy server can record the
number of recipients in a message and reject the message if a particular
condition is met. Check out existing policy servers like policyd and see
if they meet your requirements.
Of course, the users will find ways around this -- sending multiple
messages or just keep s
2010/8/11 Magnus Bäck :
>
> The body (or, as I suspect you really meant, the headers) is irrelevant,
> it's the envelope you should inspect. A policy server can record the
> number of recipients in a message and reject the message if a particular
> condition is met. Check
On 8/11/2010 3:43 PM, kazabe wrote:
i need by example reject this email.
From: "MARTHA DIAZ"
To: divin...@hotmail.com, gonzalez...@gmail.com, maia...@hotmail.com,
angelamaritz...@hotmail.com, bibiss...@hotmail.com,
juancaco...@hotmail.com, zhi...@hotmail.com, lcp...@h
>
> Here's some rope:
>
> # main.cf
> header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
>
> # header_checks
> IF /^(to|cc):/
> /(@*){10}/ HOLD too many addresses in To: or CC: header
> ENDIF
>
>
>
> Note this counts the recipients listed in each header, not the combined
> total.
>
> Note this cou
Hello,
This is, again, for mail server 101.
It seems my postfix/dovecot server on ubuntu 10.10 is working well. However, I
notice that mail sent to 'mail@' is loaded with spam.
Is it possible to disable the 'mail' user, or reject mail sent to m...@? What
should I do?
T
Hello,
Is there a way to configure Postfix to reject the entire message
(multi-recipient) if one of its recipients is unauthorized or invalid?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/reject-entire-email-if-one-recipient-is-invalid-tp30625158p30625158.html
Sent from
Am 25.04.2011 23:48, schrieb motty.cruz:
> Hello,
>
> One of our clients is trying to send us email and this is what I see in the
> Logs:
>
> # grep -i “u...@tld.com" /var/log/maillog | more
>
> Apr 25 06:49:01 host postfix/smtpd[27269]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT fr
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 02:48:56PM -0700, motty.cruz wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> reject_unauth_destination,
> reject_unknown_client, <-- unwise, and cause
>-- of the reported issue
> reject_
* motty.cruz :
> Hello,
>
> One of our clients is trying to send us email and this is what I see in the
> Logs:
>
>
>
> # grep -i "u...@tld.com" /var/log/maillog | more
>
> Apr 25 06:49:01 host postfix/smtpd[27269]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>
: reject: RCPT from unknown[...xxx]: 554
* motty.cruz :
> Hello,
>
> One of our clients is trying to send us email and this is what I see in the
> Logs:
>
>
>
> # grep -i "u...@tld.com" /var/log/maillog | more
>
> Apr 25 06:49:01 host postfix/
smtpd[48962]: connect from unknown[xxx.xxx.xxx]
Apr 28 11:11:12 host postfix/smtpd[48962]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[xxx.xxx.xxx]: 450 4.1.8 : Sender address rejected:
Domain not found; from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
#postconf -n
address_verify_service_name = verify
alias_maps = hash
ng 554 responses part of the time (not always) when attempting
> to send mail to this local recipient. An example message includes:
>
> 554 554 : Client
> host rejected: Access denied (state 14)
>
> In the interval since the current /var/log/maillog started at
> Jun 16 11:00:01
ondents are
>> getting 554 responses part of the time (not always) when attempting
>> to send mail to this local recipient. An example message includes:
>>
>> 554 554 : Client
>> host rejected: Access denied (state 14)
>>
>> In the interval since the
responses part of the time (not always) when attempting
to send mail to this local recipient. An example message includes:
554 554 : Client
host rejected: Access denied (state 14)
In the interval since the current /var/log/maillog started at
Jun 16 11:00:01, there have been 12 'reject.*Ac
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:12:24 -0500
Noel Jones wrote:
> Yes, the message was rejected by your DKIM policy action. The
> postfix default_milter_action only triggers when the milter
> cannot be contacted. If you want to accept mail that fails
> DKIM, see the dkim-filter documentation.
I sent a
On 9/11/2009 4:58 PM, mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
this is generated by webmail - this small pierce of the logs , as you
see are many destinations
Sep 11 03:01:43 serverlinux postfix/pickup[30772]: 902E78F327: uid=48
from=
Your webmail application submits mail via sendmail(1), not via
SMTP. Post
mic...@casa.co.cu:
> hello list
>
> Turns out I use a webmail (horde) in my workplace but apparently has a
> bug, somehow are generating large numbers of messages to various
> servers on the internet, yahoo, aol, hotmail and others. to keep me
> look like an open relay server.
> Sep 11 03:0
Wietse Venema escribió:
mic...@casa.co.cu:
hello list
Turns out I use a webmail (horde) in my workplace but apparently has a
bug, somehow are generating large numbers of messages to various
servers on the internet, yahoo, aol, hotmail and others. to keep me
look like an open relay server.
Noel Jones escribió:
On 9/11/2009 4:58 PM, mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
this is generated by webmail - this small pierce of the logs , as you
see are many destinations
Sep 11 03:01:43 serverlinux postfix/pickup[30772]: 902E78F327: uid=48
from=
Your webmail application submits mail via sendmail(
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:43:47 mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
> >> Turns out I use a webmail (horde) in my workplace but
> >> apparently has a bug, somehow are generating large numbers of
> >> messages to various servers on the internet, yahoo, aol,
> >> hotmail and others. to keep me look like an
/dev/rob0 escribió:
On Friday 11 September 2009 20:43:47 mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
>> Turns out I use a webmail (horde) in my workplace but
>> apparently has a bug, somehow are generating large numbers of
>> messages to various servers on the internet, yahoo, aol,
>> hotmail and others. to keep
Am 02.12.2011 23:02, schrieb Ken D'Ambrosio:
> Hey, all. I've got a primary -- my actual destination/IMAP server -- and, for
> various reasons, a secondary SMTP server. My primary only rejects mail to
> invalid recipients (spam is dealt with internally). I'd like
Le Fri 2/12/2011, Ken D'Ambrosio disait
> Hey, all. I've got a primary -- my actual destination/IMAP server -- and, for
> various reasons, a secondary SMTP server. My primary only rejects mail to
> invalid recipients (spam is dealt with internally). I'd like my secon
* Chris Adams :
> I'm configuring Postfix with SpamAssassin, using Spampd as a
> before-queue filter. I put "/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REJECT Spam detected"
> in /etc/postfix/header_checks, and that works (spam is rejected during
> SMTP as desired).
>
> However, it wo
[ Patrick Ben Koetter wrote on Fri 14.Sep'12 at 7:31:10 +0200 ]
> * Chris Adams :
> > I'm configuring Postfix with SpamAssassin, using Spampd as a
> > before-queue filter. I put "/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REJECT Spam detected"
> > in /etc/postfix/header_checks
On 9/13/2012 9:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> I'm configuring Postfix with SpamAssassin, using Spampd as a
> before-queue filter. I put "/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REJECT Spam detected"
> in /etc/postfix/header_checks, and that works (spam is rejected during
> SMTP as desired)
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* Chris Adams:
I'm configuring Postfix with SpamAssassin, using Spampd as a
before-queue filter. I put "/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REJECT Spam detected"
in /etc/postfix/header_checks, and that works (spam is rejected during
SMTP as desired).
However, it w
Stan Hoeppner:
> On 9/13/2012 9:59 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > I'm configuring Postfix with SpamAssassin, using Spampd as a
> > before-queue filter. I put "/^X-Spam-Flag: YES/ REJECT Spam detected"
> > in /etc/postfix/header_checks, and that works (spam is
701 - 800 of 1345 matches
Mail list logo
