Hi everybody,
I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as a
before-queue filter.
The main requirement is massive speed (100ms scan time), thus I am
avoiding amavisd-new + spamassassin, even with tuned rules, in favor of
something written in a compiled language.
situation: internet - mx
wanted configuration: internet - relay - mx, with the same allowed
recipients
Please let me know if you need more information on my setup.
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
point
me to the right direction?
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at
dukhovni.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 06:52:52PM
+0200, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
I've noticed that the syntax:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
pcre:/etc/postfix/sender_access
is valid, and by all means as
effective
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
First of all, thanks for the answer.
The Postfix instance before
the content filter uses sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
to send mail with a null sender to the first smtp transport,
and everything else to the second smtp
- - n - - smtp
-o smtp_generic_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/generic
What am I missing here?
Thanks a lot
Fabio Sangiovanni
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
Fabio Sangiovanni:
Hi all,
from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and
therefore the expected syntax is that of default_transport, not the
syntax
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
One question: since sender_dependent_default_transport_maps overrides
default_transport, how can I have this within a relay domain configuration?
The Postfix instance before the content filter sends *all mail* to
the content filter. This
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
to solve, instead of your solution (routing senders differently).
It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
language, which is currently not included
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
Wietse Venema:
Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
to solve, instead of your solution (routing senders differently).
It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
language, which is
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
In the end, it appears that the more verbose configuration language
wins.
Thanks, this should also get rid of the double instance + content filter.
It should work properly, and let's hope requirements don't change :)
Fabio
Fabio Sangiovanni sangiovanni at nweb.it writes:
Is someone willing to clarify this a little?
Sorry if I quote myself, but what about this?
Is it to be considered an error in the docs?
I'm referring to the possibility to specify a
null nexthop in sender_dependent_default_transport_maps,
while
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
Fabio Sangiovanni:
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps supports different syntax
than transport_maps.
Both support the form name: and name (both mean the same thing).
That's where the similarity ends.
In addition transport_maps
of multiple recipients.
Have you any suggestions?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Fabio Sangiovanni
Il 10/06/13 16:26, v.dimit...@synergetic.ag ha scritto:
You may use something like this:
bcc_table:
address | enabled
empty_string | 1
spec...@example.com | 1
SELECT case when `enabled` then 'other_...@example.com' else
'default_...@example.com' end FROM `bcc_table` where `address` in
Hi list,
I need to setup recipient_bcc_maps to get the following behaviour:
- by default, I need every message to be BBC'd to default_...@example.com
- for particular recipients, I need the message to be BCC'd to
other_...@example.com (and to this address only)
- I need particular recipients
Wietse Venema wietse at porcupine.org writes:
Viktor Dukhovni:
src/smtpd/smtpd_resolve.c:
lowercase(STR(reply-recipient)); /* XXX */
This may have escaped the code cleanup when forced lowercase
was removed from access maps.
Wietse
Thanks for your
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at dukhovni.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
$ postmap -q 'test at domain.tld' \
regexp:/etc/postfix/check_recipient_access.regexp
REJECT wrong format
while:
$ postmap -q 'tEsT at domain.tld
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at dukhovni.org writes:
Sorry, I don't do pastebins. If you want help include the relevant
information in your message.
Relevant (long piece of) information included at the end of this message :)
Addresses used in access checks are case folded in Postfix
Hello list,
I'm trying to figure out how case sensitivity works in a
check_recipient_access regexp table (Postfix 2.6.6).
This is my main.cf:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
allow_min_user = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at dukhovni.org writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:35:48PM +0100, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how case sensitivity works in a
check_recipient_access regexp table (Postfix 2.6.6).
Try the documentation:
http://www.postfix.org
Noel Jones njones at megan.vbhcs.org writes:
Seems like the easiest solution is to put permit_sasl_authenticated
BEFORE reject_rbl_client. Then no whitelisting is needed.
-- Noel Jones
Hi, thanks for your answer.
Yes, that would be useful, except for malware that steals your
Noel Jones njones at megan.vbhcs.org writes:
Your method of manually whitelisting any IP that happens to be
spamhaus listed doesn't scale very well. Every time some authorized
user travels somewhere, stops at a wifi hotspot, or their home IP
changes, will need to call you to get whitelisted
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at dukhovni.org writes:
Replace OK with:
/etc/postfix/whitelist_client.cidr:
192.0.2.1/32permit_sasl_authenticated
Sorry Viktor,
I have another question: what happens if a client is whitelisted AND it fails
SASL authentication?
I suppose that
Hello list,
I'm running a Postfix (2.6.6) server used by my company's customers to
submit mail.
Source IPs are not known in advance, so normally we grant relay access
using SASL authentication.
Additionally, we need to prevent as much as possible submissions from
unauthorized clients using
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-users at dukhovni.org writes:
Replace OK with:
/etc/postfix/whitelist_client.cidr:
192.0.2.1/32permit_sasl_authenticated
Awesome. I totally missed this part of documentation:
http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
[...]
OTHER ACTIONS
Hello list,
I'm using postfix 2.6.6 with cyrus-sasl (saslauthd + pam_mysql).
Everything works ok, except that I've noticed that users can login successfully
using their username with an arbitrary @domain part, that is I see login
success in 2 cases:
- username = user
- username =
Hi,
I'd like to point out a possibile typo at
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#qmgr_message_recipient_limit:
[…] the maximal *size of the size* of the short-term, in-memory dead
destination status cache.
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
Thanks, I routinely use a double word detector, but I don't have
a double multi-word detector.
Wietse
I'm glad I was of help :)
Have a nice day!
Fabio
/2012, alle ore 19:31, Wietse Venema ha scritto:
Fabio Sangiovanni:
Hi,
I need to configure Postfix to get the following result: I need
every mail submitted by users to be redirected to a remote account
(via SMTP or LMTP), and every message must contain an header with
the original envelope rcpt
Hi Noel,
thanks, I'll follow your advice.
Fabio
Il giorno 10/feb/2012, alle ore 17:44, Noel Jones ha scritto:
On 2/10/2012 2:36 AM, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
Hi Wietse,
thanks a lot for your help.
One last question: in order to redirect mail from the original recipient(s)
to the catch
Hi,
I need to configure Postfix to get the following result: I need every mail
submitted by users to be redirected to a remote account (via SMTP or LMTP), and
every message must contain an header with the original envelope rcpt.
Example:
user MUA submits 2 messages, one for a...@domain1.com
Hello list,
my apologies in advance for the almost OT question.
I need to setup a mail server that does a particular thing: it receives mail
(from user SMTP submission, not as final destination) and, instead of relay,
does something that ends up in having the mail (body + headers + attachments)
,
Fabio
Il giorno 08/feb/2012, alle ore 12:52, Simone Caruso ha scritto:
On 08/02/2012 10:19, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
it receives mail (from user SMTP submission, not as final destination) and,
instead of relay, does something that ends up in having the mail (body +
headers + attachments
Il giorno 29/08/11 18:56, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org ha scritto:
On 8/29/2011 11:20 AM, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
So default values are defined at compile time, aren't they?
Yes, and FWIW, I don't expect the official default values of
parent_domain_matches_subdomains relay_domains
Il giorno 30/08/11 00:20, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org ha
scritto:
To view the built-in defaults, use postconf -d.
To view the main.cf settings, use postconf -n.
Wietse
Of course, my mistake (again). Fortunately the output of postconf -d has
turned out to be the same.
Thanks a
36 matches
Mail list logo
