Wietse Venema wrote on Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:10:40 -0500 (EST):
> HOWEVER, by default Postfix evaluates all of these at RCPT TO time.
which means smtpd_delay_reject = yes is the default?
Am I correct in assuming that with "yes" it doesn't matter if I list the
client restrictions in
Noel Jones wrote on Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:30:08 -0600:
> With the above list, check_sender_access comes first. Postfix does
> not reorder the list you have specified.
Thanks for the answer. But, please look again.
/etc/mail/access:
createsend.com REJECT
cmail20.com REJECT
The order is:
> >
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:12:49 +0100:
> the problem lies in "parent_domain_matches_subdomains" which is (and should
> be) empty in postfix and apparently even is in new postfix version.
As I wrote earlier, it *is* set implicitely by backwards-compatibilty.
> First I
I'm having trouble with access_maps kicking in after an upgrade from a
Postfix 2.something to Postfix 3.1. on Ubuntu 14.06 and using postscreen
and rspamd milter.
After some testing I'm not sure yet, but it looks like the recommended
smtpd_delay_reject = yes in connection with having the
Addendum.
Currently, I get client rejections with the setup shown in my last mail
(despite the delay). I don't know if it hits *always*, though. I can't
check if it didn't hit for some client where the name matches, there are
too many entries.
I expected it to carry out the helo checks before
Carsten Rosenberg wrote on Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:23:54 +0100:
> So if you reject somebody with an access_map, you won't see any scan
> result in rspamd.
This would be fine ;-)
> Do you have any problems with this situation?
Yes, it's the other way around here. e.g. there is no rejection happening
Phil Stracchino wrote on Sun, 16 Dec 2018 16:34:23 -0500:
> relay recipient table
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relay_recipient_maps
may be helpful.
Kai
Stefan Bauer wrote on Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:10:10 +0100:
> the threshold is at default, so 1.
This may not be part of your problem, but using a threshold of 1 and then
using this weighting scheme is nonsense:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org*2 bl.spamcop.net*1
b.barracudacentral.org*1
Postfix 3.1.0, set up with virtual domains and users in a database via
virtual_ directives in main.cf
rspamd set up as a milter
-> everything works just fine.
I have one server where the client wants to get mail delivered to his
Exchange server remotely instead. He wants to have the mail
Thanks for the reply, but no.
I had to, indeed, remove the domain from $mydestination to not deliver
locally, but it's still not working correctly.
Your map configuration lines may be wrong.
I think the only thing you need is this as a destination:
/^List@List\.TLD$/mailman3:
(no
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Wed, 07 Aug 2019 19:11:19 +0200:
> Should I remove the domain from $mydestination ?
I did that now and postfix still accepts the mail.
However, it doesn't deliver it to the remote server.
It hangs in the queue.
It's possible that the remote side is not accept
Noel Jones wrote on Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:37:08 -0500:
> Postfix logs all delivery attempts.
I thought so, but ...
In that case it just hangs in the queue and nothing happens after the
milter was consulted. I can see it getting logged in rspamd and then it
just sits in the hold queue.
I have still one question, though.
I fear that forwarding the mail via transport may not consult the milter.
At the moment the remote Exchange is still not configured to accept the
domain. I'm still waiting for that to take place.
In the meantime, though, I would have expected that the course of
Noel Jones wrote on Thu, 8 Aug 2019 10:49:54 -0500:
> That looks like a policy service and not a milter.
Yeah, right. It's a dovecot authenticator I think.
>
> Regardless, postfix accepts mail, running it through all configured
> milters, restrictions, and policy services, then puts it in the
Wietse Venema wrote on Wed, 7 Aug 2019 19:33:05 -0400 (EDT):
> Once a message enters in the hold queue IT WILL SIT THERE FOREVER
> unless something releases it from that queue.
Understood. Thanks! I should have known from the past (see below).
>
> You need to figure out why messages are placed
I went back to my original config with virtual users and domains, with and
without the milter. I left transport and mynetworks as they were. I have
no idea why, but it's working now and I get a bounce from the remote
server (= it's not yet accepting the mail). No more attempts to deliver
Maztec wrote on Thu, 8 Aug 2019 01:13:18 -0700 (MST):
> However, Mailman3 does not use a socket -
> nonetheless I tried.
I wrote that because your service specification in master.cf says it does
use a Unix socket.
I think you have to specify that in the mailman3 service in your
master.cf!
17 matches
Mail list logo
