hard-code the number into the
> jq script:
[..]
I did hardcode the number of days in the script. If ever I want to
change the number of days (probably never): it's a oneliner :-)
Thnx!
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
t; and .arrival_time <
> > | $too_old) .queue_id
> > | select(test("^\\w+$")) # permit only valid queue-id
> > | syntax
> > ' |
> > postsuper -d - hold
Viktor,
I have run the jq script for a week or so ($days = 5) and it works like
a charm :-)
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
dy put me on the jq path, as
I did not know the "-j" JSON output either. The jq-only is the way to
handle this IMHO.
Thnx everyone here!
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:01:35 +0100
Dominic Raferd wrote:
> I attach a script that can do it.
Thnx, but I did not ask to write one, I'm just too lazy to reinvent the
wheel :)
I will put it to the test anyway :)
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
st wondering if anybody
had written such a script.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
Hello list,
Anyone here who wrote a shell script that deletes messages older than X
days from the hold queue?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
uot;.
Sorry for the noise...
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:36:45 +1200
Peter wrote:
> > Yes, but why 1 minute ok, 1 minute errors, 1 minute ok, etc etc?
>
> What's the TTL on the dkim TXT DNS record?
As I said: 3600 sec...
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 00:16:42 -0400
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 07:23:50PM +0200, richard lucassen wrote:
>
> > mail.info: Apr 12 18:01:16 opendkim[13977]: 828FE7F581: s=202103
> > d=example.com SSL error:0407008A:rsa
> > routines:RSA_padding_ch
Or maybe some cache somewhere? DNS is ok, TTL of
DKIM record is 3600. Haystack, needle, but I need to find the haystack
first.
Anyone a hint?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
well. It would not be trivial to build a diagnostic tool which
> handles check_mumble_access lookups exactly as Postfix does.
>
> No, I am not aware of such a tool.
Ok, thnx, I'll keep using swaks then (Swiss Army Knife for SMTP). But
you'll have to be aware of the postfi
he database. Is there a *simple CLI* way to test
the db like Postfix does? I mean a simpler tool than "swaks" that I use
now to test the db's.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
e the domain was
added to the DBL. Hmmm, and now that I'm writing this I will have to
check why smtpd does not apply a 5xx reject if the next hop (amavis) is
generating a 5xx code.
Anyway, there is no blame on Postfix: doing some checks using "swaks"
things work as expected.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
back controls...
>
> Try and get whitelisted by outlook.com, that's better than taking
> evasive countermeasures.
We tried but no way. Next monday we'll have another try. It seems that
it has to do with ip and domain reputation, there have been some
issues in the past. We'll find tha
ding to you I should add:
smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
to main.cf.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
the DBL check, the DBL check
is skipped, although this DBL check is made at the next hop AFAIUI.
Removing the ip from the cache makes the DBL check work again for that
particular ip.
Is this behaviour correct or did I make a config error somewhere?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
at the same domain of course.
Right or wrong?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
recipients (AS780090)
[AM5EUR03FT055.eop-EUR03.prod.protection.outlook.com] (in reply to RCPT
TO command))
Searching a bit I found this setting:
smtp_destination_recipient_limit
This defaults to 50. Is this the right parameter to adjust?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
bump in a composite spam score.
That's the choice of the receiver. And his/her resposabilty.
If I ask you to reject mail from my domain dos.nl which is not
signed and coming from an ip that is not in my -all SPF record, who am
I to tell you not to accept the mail anyway? If you want it, go ahead,
you're welcome! :)
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:01:05 +0100
richard lucassen <mailingli...@lucassen.org> wrote:
It must be OpenDMARC:
host -t txt artifact-software.com
"v=spf1 mx -all"
host -t txt _dmarc.artifact-software.com
"v=DMARC1; pct=100; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r"
And as t
oto=ESMTP helo=
mail.info: Feb 12 21:10:58 postfix/postsuper[9039]: 239803F990:
released from hold
mail.info: Feb 12 21:10:58 postfix/postsuper[9039]: Released from hold:
1 message
Hmm, must be the SPF milter I fear. Apparently I'm not the only one.
Don't know if it has been resolved. For the moment I'
this for me.
It just happened to the message of Ron Wheeler (X-Spam-Score: -2.299)
in the "Postfix 20 years ago" thread.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
also include
> "qmgr" and "smtp-amavis".
Thnx Viktor, I'll have a closer look at this matter.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
s chrooted:
>
> Instead of just asserting that "Postfix is chrooted", post the output
> of postconf -Mf (make sure that your mail client does not change the
> line breaks).
Uhmm, seeing the output of "postconf -Mf" I think it must be the amavis
smtpd that runs non-ch
the jail. Symlinking the
two directories from the /var/run to the chroot jail makes these
warnings disappear.
Anyone a hint what this can be? I cannot find anything in /etc/ that
points to these sockets outside the chroot jail.
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].2*-3
list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].3*-4
postscreen_pipelining_action = enforce
postscreen_pipelining_enable = yes
postscreen_non_smtp_command_action = enforce
postscreen_non_smtp_command_enable = yes
postscreen_bare_newline_action = enforce
postscreen
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:04:22 +0100
richard lucassen <mailingli...@lucassen.org> wrote:
> > http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html#timing
>
> Ok, so there is no reason anymore to use all these separate
> smtpd_*_restrictions, I will just use smtpd_recipient_rest
S_README.html#timing
Ok, so there is no reason anymore to use all these separate
smtpd_*_restrictions, I will just use smtpd_recipient_restrictions
as clearly stated here:
http://www.akadia.com/services/postfix_uce.html
That's right isn't it?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
strictions but did I miss something crucial somewhere?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
an be emulated with restriction_classes, but that does not scale
> to many users. See
> http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
I think I'll try postfwd first, this seems to do nice job. Thnx!
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
n.com reject
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
such a restriction?
2) which option(s) should be used for such a restriction?
R.
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
stablished from assurancetourix.utr.xaq.nl[192.168.64.100]: TLSv1.2 with
cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)
mail.info: Jan 28 09:04:39 postfix/smtpd[7581]: C3BBE9F298:
client=assurancetourix.utr.xaq.nl[192.168.64.100]
--
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 06:17:09 -0500 (EST)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> richard lucassen:
> > When I send a message, I get a number of lines in the logs telling
> > me:
> >
> > SSL_accept:unknown state
> >
> > Everything works fine. Any
.
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
+--+
.
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
+--+
and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
+--+
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:43:23 -0500
Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 8/8/2014 6:36 AM, richard lucassen wrote:
Is it possible to manage the verify database manually? E.g. remove a
negative address entry?
I forward mail to backend servers and when a backend server gives
.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org
the front-end servers.
Thnx!
R.
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht
silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:40:58 +0100
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu wrote:
richard lucassen skrev den 2013-02-19 13:58:
Ok, that seems to be very nice. AFAIUI it can be implemented on the
backend server. I'd prefer not to touch the front-end servers.
then use the ha-proxy on front end
and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
.
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:50:21 +0100
Patrick Ben Koetter p...@state-of-mind.de wrote:
* richard lucassen postfix-us...@cloud9.net:
I want to send once a week a simple mail to a list of 3000
recipients. I can set smtpd_recipient_limit and
smtpd_recipient_overshoot_limit to higher limits
and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
On Wed, 13 May 2009 15:21:47 -0400
Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:54:18PM +0200, richard lucassen wrote:
IIRC there's a limit for limiting outgoing smtp connections. I just
can't find it. Anyone a hint?
http://www.postfix.org
this?
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email
and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail-pubkey.html |
+--+
with the config of a very old machine.
--
___
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht
and be thought a fool, than to speak
aloud and remove all doubt.
+--+
| Richard Lucassen, Utrecht|
| Public key and email address:|
| http://www.lucassen.org/mail
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:37:09 -0500 (EST)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
richard lucassen:
Apparently, this:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org
reject_rbl_client virbl.dnsbl.bit.nl
The above does RBL
56 matches
Mail list logo
