Hi,
I have a fedora38 system with postfix-3.7.9 that fails to start on boot
because of the below problem. I have intentionally set inet_interfaces to
only 127.0.0.1 because it's my outbound interface that communicates with
amavisd on 10025.
This must be related to the fedora systemd scripts using
On 16/05/24 23:40, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
Dnia 16.05.2024 o godz. 12:05:52 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
On my side the email is accepted from here, and relayed, Rspamd
does sign it, and Postfix's last message in the log is a message
sent delivered, and removed from my queue. I
Dnia 16.05.2024 o godz. 12:05:52 Peter via Postfix-users pisze:
> >On my side the email is accepted from here, and relayed, Rspamd
> >does sign it, and Postfix's last message in the log is a message
> >sent delivered, and removed from my queue. I check my test Gmail
> >
On 16/05/24 11:54, David Mehler via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is a Postfix or an Rspamd problem or a Gmail
problem, the first two I can do something about the third one not so sure.
I'm running a personal E-mail server running on a VPS via a2hosting. I'm
using
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is a Postfix or an Rspamd problem or a Gmail
problem, the first two I can do something about the third one not so sure.
I'm running a personal E-mail server running on a VPS via a2hosting. I'm
using Cloudflare for my DNS. I've got Postfix 3.7.11 and Rspamd 3.8.4
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-15 11:25:
|> Can someone explain why bl.spamcop.net reverses the ipv6 ip, thus not
|> recognizing it like postscreen?
This is the usual way to do reverse lookups. RFC 1034 from 1987:
2
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-15 11:29:
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service
Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-15 11:25:
Can someone explain why bl.spamcop.net reverses the ipv6 ip, thus not
recognizing it like postscreen?
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/2607%3Af8b0%3A4864%3A20%3A%3A930.html
dnsbl must be reversed, not any news there
and note
On 15.05.24 11:25, Jos Chrispijn via Postfix-users wrote:
Recently I noticed this in my logfile:
0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.bl.spamcop.net:
Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=0.3.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f
again
According to Postfix/postscreen it happens to be the reversed notation
of the IPv6 sender of the email:
May 11 23:14:27 terra postfix/postscreen[4111]: PASS NEW
[2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]:43019
Can someone explain why bl.spamcop.net reverses the ipv6 ip, thus not
recognizing it like
Hi guys,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:01 PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> Dan Mahoney via Postfix-users wrote in
> <56abb6d4-e690-4f94-aadb-2f646a6d1...@prime.gushi.org>:
> |> On Mar 6, 2024, at 16:52, Wietse Venema via Postfix-u
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240513204918.ga80...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|This discussion seems of-topic for the postfix-users mailing list.
Yes, i apologise, and am silent now.
|If you feel strongly about how email is authenticated, I suggest
|that you join the re
This discussion seems of-topic for the postfix-users mailing list.
If you feel strongly about how email is authenticated, I suggest
that you join the relevant working group discussions while the
details are still mutable. Complaining about the final result is
too late, and publishing non
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 03:59:27AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
...
|> v0.6.1, 2024-05-12:
|> - Adds the algorithm big_ed-sha256 which effectively is RFC 8463
|> (aka ed25519-sha256), but performs thr
Thank you very much Victor, You put me on the right track. I should have
checked the access databases more closely.
Peter
Am Mo., 13. Mai 2024 um 12:18 Uhr schrieb Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Uetrecht via Postfix-users
> wrote:
&
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Uetrecht via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I have a working multi-instance setup with Postfix version 3.8.4 What
> surprises me is that “recipient_canonical” works for some recipients
> but not for all. It seems that "recipient_ca
Hello everyone,
I have a working multi-instance setup with Postfix version 3.8.4
What surprises me is that “recipient_canonical” works for some recipients
but not for all.
It seems that "recipient_canonical" works for orig_to recipients in
"mydomain", while it does not work fo
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > > Logs:
> > > grep relay=nlp[123456].*status=sent /var/log/maillog | sed
> > > 's/.*relay=//' | sed 's/,.*//' | sort | uniq -c
Thanks. Was just confirming , Yes self signed. I broke certbot
> On May 12, 2024, at 4:55 AM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:55:14PM -0400, Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> I have they error message
>>
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:55:14PM -0400, Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users wrote:
> I have they error message
>
> postfix/smtps/smtpd[39559]: warning: TLS library problem:
> error:14094416:SSL routines:ssl3_read_bytes:
> sslv3 alert certificate unknown:
> /usr/src/crypto/
On 11.05.24 23:55, Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users wrote:
Still chasing ssl/tls issue
I have they error message
postfix/smtps/smtpd[39559]: warning: TLS library problem: error:14094416:SSL
routines:ssl3_read_bytes:sslv3 alert certificate
unknown:/usr/src/crypto/openssl/ssl/record/rec_layer_s3
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 03:59:27AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Well here i am indeed back again, to announce
>
> v0.6.1, 2024-05-12:
> - Adds the algorithm big_ed-sha256 which effectively is RFC 8463
> (aka ed25519-sha256), but performs three di
Still chasing ssl/tls issue
I have they error message
postfix/smtps/smtpd[39559]: warning: TLS library problem: error:14094416:SSL
routines:ssl3_read_bytes:sslv3 alert certificate
unknown:/usr/src/crypto/openssl/ssl/record/rec_layer_s3.c:1621:SSL alert number
46:
I am assuming the ie eher
On 2024/5/11 22:51, Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users wrote:
My nonrandom action for tho morning OK I bandaided my going back to an older
main.cf but updating the ssl/tls infoThat brought mail back on line
Sort of
Dovecot still not happy with me but this error seems more warning and best
fen%sdaoden.eu>
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-u
Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-11 16:51:
status=sent (delivered via dovecot service
(lda(ja...@theoceanwindow.com): Error:
net_connect_unix(/var/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permis))
grep -r stats /etc/dovecot/
i get an helpfull url from it
/etc/dovecot/conf.d/10
dovecot service (lda(ja...@theoceanwindow.com):
Error: net_connect_unix(/var/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permis))
May 11 09:33:00 triggerfish postfix/qmgr[52364]: 136046542A08: removed
Remember entropy can not be avoided
> On May 11, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-us
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 05:31:21PM -0700, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
> The ideal end goal would be to use the same general set of controls as
> v4, but to start off I would like to use a more permissive/less
> restrictive set of controls, and initially only enable v6 for
&g
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:11:30AM +0200, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > I am running Postfix/Dovecot/MySQL mail server. It was doing ok
> > until I tried to improve it., I
>
> maybe just reboot ? :)
Unlikely to help. Just restarting dovecot would be abo
Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-05-11 02:47:
I am running Postfix/Dovecot/MySQL mail server. It was doing ok
until I tried to improve it., I
maybe just reboot ? :)
dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to triggerfish.theoceanwindow.com
[1][private/dovecot-lmtp]: Connection
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:13:06PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Logs:
> > grep relay=nlp[123456].*status=sent /var/log/maillog | sed
> > 's/.*relay=//' | sed 's/,.*//' | sort | uniq -c
This fails to deduplicate multi-recipient deliveries, which rec
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jason Hirsh via Postfix-users wrote:
> I am running Postfix/Dovecot/MySQL mail server. It was doing ok
> until I tried to improve it.
Reverting back to the "unimproved" prior state may be the best course of
action.
> May 10 2
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:47:31PM -0400, Alex via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hi, I'm using postfix-3.7.9 multi-instance on fedora38 and can't figure out
> why always_bcc and recipient_bcc_maps aren't working on the outbound
> instance.
>
> 127.0.0.1:10025 inet n- n
Hi, I'm using postfix-3.7.9 multi-instance on fedora38 and can't figure out
why always_bcc and recipient_bcc_maps aren't working on the outbound
instance. It would work best in the outbound instance because of other
processing that's happening in the inbound instances.
# postmulti -l
I am running Postfix/Dovecot/MySQL mail server. It was doing ok until I tried
to improve it., I
dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to
triggerfish.theoceanwindow.com[private/dovecot-lmtp]: Connection refused)
May 10 20:11:27 triggerfish postfix/lmtp[47754]: 172816542AC3:
to=, orig_to=, relay
nlp3 gets 15905 more conections than
the average for the other five hosts, or 32% of the 49661.
This belies the idea that Postix does not round robin. It is more
like some of the time it fails to reach the other five MX hosts.
(I'm assuming that you weren't changing Postfix configurations
during
pt., 10 maj 2024 o 16:13 Wietse Venema via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> napisał(a):
All at once answer, hope it's OK:
IP's:
^
dig mx mxmail.adatum.net +short | cut -d' ' -f2 | xargs dig a +short
10.56.155.14
10.32.32.103
10.32.32.104
10.26
John Doe via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I was hoping for real MX record round-robin but it does not work on one of
> my servers.
>
> Somehow, postfix is prioritising one of the MX more than others.
By default, Postfix looks up SMTP servers in DNS, and randomizes
the order o
Hi,
I was hoping for real MX record round-robin but it does not work on one of
my servers.
Somehow, postfix is prioritising one of the MX more than others.
Always the same: nlp3.loc-prd.net
All MX servers, are in local network to this client mailserver.
We have relayhost in main.cf
nen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
___________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:47:59PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via
Postfix-users wrote:
> On 07.05.24 17:13, Дилян Палаузов via Postfix-users wrote:
> >I try to understand the difference between alias_database and alias_maps.
>
> >Or, does postalias/newaliases use is alias
On 07.05.24 17:13, Дилян Палаузов via Postfix-users wrote:
I try to understand the difference between alias_database and alias_maps.
Or, does postalias/newaliases use is alias_database as input, ignoring
alias_maps, while local ignores alias_databases and uses alias_maps?
Precisely
bad idea.
On a different note, https://www.postfix.org/postfix-manuals.html is supposed
to contain “All Postfix manual pages”, but it does not list qshape(1).
Greetings
Дилян
___________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
That worked :) - Thank you Viktor, much appreciated!
Denis
> On 7 May 2024, at 12:14, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 10:07:15AM +0200, Denis Krienbühl via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, I ended up with the following ru
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 10:07:15AM +0200, Denis Krienbühl via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Ultimately, I ended up with the following rule, but I have a problem with it
> (or any other that I've found):
>
> /^\s*Received:[^\n]+(.*)/ REPLACE Received: from
Hi
I'm working on configuring a new mail server instance on Debian Bookworm, with
Postfix 3.7.10-0+deb12u1. To hide internal IP addresses, I'd like to rewrite
the first "Received" header for mails submitted by authenticated users. There
are a number of options I found online, an
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:37:54AM +0200, Дилян Палаузов via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> postconf(5) contains:
>
> virtual_alias_domains (default: $virtual_alias_maps)
> virtual_alias_maps (default: $virtual_maps)
> virtual_maps (default: empty)
>
>
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:37:54AM +0200, Дилян Палаузов via Postfix-users
wrote:
> My reading is that a domain in virtual_alias_domains can be mentioned
> neither in virtual_mailbox_domains nor as mydestination domain.
Correct, note however, that *all* recipients are subject to vir
virtual_alias_domains and virtual_mailbox_domains are set.
Greetings
Дилян
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Edgar Fuss via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for prior art on rejecting mails to expired accounts
> including a hint at the new address.
You could use the relocated_maps feature for this. This will reject
at RCPT TO time, with a hard-coded response "5.1.6 User has
as someone implemented such a policy daemon?
Can it be done with Postfix alone?
Thanks for any hints and sorry if I failed to find a prior answer.
_______
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
nd forward <20240504004740.Tx-M0L_r@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
___
Postf
Tim Coote via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> I think that I’ve now fixed this in my domain, so I thought I’d just note the
> route to finding it, more as a comment on the complexity of working out
> what’s going on.
>
> After making a simple robot to send emails with long head
x via Postfix-users" wrote:
Hi,
I'm using postfix-3.7.9 on fedora38 and would like to implement ARC to assist
with authenticating emails being forwarded by users to Gmail and others. The
research I've done points to OpenARC as a dead project.
This looks like a great guide to get starte
Hi,
I'm using postfix-3.7.9 on fedora38 and would like to implement ARC to
assist with authenticating emails being forwarded by users to Gmail and
others. The research I've done points to OpenARC as a dead project.
This looks like a great guide to get started, but I'm having trouble
identifying
Norbert Schmidt via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> We've got a single user needing Micro$oft Teams. This users mailaccount
> u...@contenso.com is configured on our server AND within Microsoft365 as
> sending address for the invitations.
> All other mail accounts are local an
Hello,
We've got a single user needing Micro$oft Teams. This users mailaccount
u...@contenso.com is configured on our server AND within Microsoft365 as
sending address for the invitations.
All other mail accounts are local and send via postfix.
With blimmen Microsoft365 the invitation mails
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vvgyx1yynzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
|> Looks like there is sufficient basis to make SMTPD_QUIT_NC rerquests
|> thts from Postfix. Just need to figure out how to enable/disable
|> this particula
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Looks like there is sufficient basis to make SMTPD_QUIT_NC rerquests
> thts from Postfix. Just need to figure out how to enable/disable
> this particular command based on the Postfix and Milter protocol
> versions. There is already some 'set' inter
On 2024-05-02 at 07:53:15 UTC-0400 (Thu, 2 May 2024 12:53:15 +0100)
Tim Coote via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
What would have helped - and I’ve no idea how feasible this is -
would be some tooling to pull out different versions of the message as
they flow through the queues
On 02.05.24 12:53, Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote:
I think that I’ve now fixed this in my domain, so I thought I’d just note
the route to finding it, more as a comment on the complexity of working
out what’s going on.
After making a simple robot to send emails with long headers
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Hello.
I hope it is acceptable to forward this.
Maybe someone finds it of value.
Thank you for postfix, and thank you all. This list gives very
helpful non-fooling information, and i am grateful it exists.
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso ---
...
Tonight i finally uploaded the first
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vtb9v00wbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> But one thing is plain, if lines get folded "artificially" to
|> satisfy line length limits, then this is a whitespace
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> But one thing is plain, if lines get folded "artificially" to
> satisfy line length limits, then this is a whitespace that DKIM
> will see, and if it was not in the original message, the signature
> will break.
After the DKIM
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vtlbf3vz0zj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Postfix does not store line endings internally, because different
|environments have different line ending conventions (for example
|SMTP has while UNIX has ). Postfix strips line endings
|on input, an
John Levine wrote in
<20240430015342.8DF9C89B9BE7@ary.local>:
|It appears that Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
|said:
|W> |I did not want to insult you!
|>|In mind i had these canon..py snippets
|>|
|>| def strip_trailing_whitespace(content):
|>|return re.su
Postfix does not store line endings internally, because different
environments have different line ending conventions (for example
SMTP has while UNIX has ). Postfix strips line endings
on input, and adds them on output. Postfix was modeled after routers
with different kinds of network interfaces
Ml Ml via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> currently we manually use text files for mapping/routing:
>
> # postconf -n |grep -e transport -e alias
> alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
> alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
> allow_
Hello,
currently we manually use text files for mapping/routing:
# postconf -n |grep -e transport -e alias
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
allow_mail_to_commands = alias,forward,include
local_transport
It appears that Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users said:
W> |I did not want to insult you!
> |In mind i had these canon..py snippets
> |
> | def strip_trailing_whitespace(content):
> |return re.sub(b"[\t ]+\r\n", b"\r\n", content)
> |
> |
> | def
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240429215451.hPgOZwzc@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote in
| <53d75fd8-e109-4712-ba9c-4ea07aa2b...@kitterman.com>:
||On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
|| wrote:
||&g
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vstkr2gkhzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
|> <4vsq5f6q3nzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|>|Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
|> ..
|>|>
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote in
<53d75fd8-e109-4712-ba9c-4ea07aa2b...@kitterman.com>:
|On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users \
| wrote:
|>Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in
|> :
...
|>|That’s why I formed a hypothesis that (my) Post
On April 29, 2024 9:27:20 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in
> :
> |Thanks very much for the detailed response. My original issue was why \
> |dkim signatures were failing on some emails from email lists when arriving \
>
Tim Coote via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Thanks very much for the detailed response. My original issue was why \
|dkim signatures were failing on some emails from email lists when arriving \
|at my Postfix based domain (postfix-3.4.10-1.fc30.x86_64 - I know it \
|needs updating: and that may
Thanks very much for the detailed response. My original issue was why dkim
signatures were failing on some emails from email lists when arriving at my
Postfix based domain (postfix-3.4.10-1.fc30.x86_64 - I know it needs updating:
and that may be the only reasonable answer). I have only seen
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
> <4vsq5f6q3nzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
> |Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
> ..
> |> SMTP headers are often 'folded' as they flow through MTAs. The
> |> standard approach to folding an
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vsq5f6q3nzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
..
|> SMTP headers are often 'folded' as they flow through MTAs. The
|> standard approach to folding and unfolding is covered in rfcs 5322
...
|3) Lines that exce
Tim Coote via Postfix-users:
> Hullo
>
> I've recently stumbled across this issue and wondered if it's a/
> common, b/ how it can be addressed.
>
> SMTP headers are often 'folded' as they flow through MTAs. The
> standard approach to folding and unfolding is covered in rfcs
k that with mtr (or traceroute which is much
less informative)
> I think that cann't explain why postfix is not reachable on ipv6.
I think you have proven that some MX checker over some unknown path
cannot always reach your Postfix system. I routinely run ping and
mtr to monitor my connectivity. If th
I mostly agree - I’ve been using Postfix for a long while now. But something is
folding headers in my domain and failing DKIM that don’t get folded by gmail
and which, if I manually unfold and remove the extra space do get signature
agreement.
Here’s an example:
List-Unsubscribe:
<https:/
Remember that Postfix has supported DKIM via various milters for
15+ years without issues. So no, practically there is no problem with
DKIM and header folding in Postfix.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send
the original (signed) version. So if one of
these headers is included in the signature it will fail.
AFAICT, Postfix folds headers and, if there is not whitespaces typically puts
after a comma in the data structure of the header, thus breaking
DKIM on unfolding (as there is an extra character
On Apr 24, 2024, at 09:05, John Levine via Postfix-users
wrote:
I suppose, but sending bare LF in SMTP is definitely wrong, so he needs to
fix that first.
On 28.04.24 19:15, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
Well, the header lines are properly terminated by CRLF. However, the text
lines
Wietse,
I run the script every five minutes for more than 13 hours to the DNS
server of Cloudflare (2620:fe::fe).
Four times I had some packet drops (about 25%).
I think that cann't explain why postfix is not reachable on ipv6.
Can postscreen drop an ipv6 connection?
Gr.,
Jack
Op 28-04-2024
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 07:15:38PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
> > I suppose, but sending bare LF in SMTP is definitely wrong, so he needs to
> > fix that first.
>
> Well, the header lines are properly terminated by CRLF. However, the
> text lines are whatever I get fro
Well, the header lines are properly terminated by CRLF. However, the
text lines are whatever I get from postfix. Generally that is just a
LF. I copied the text and inserted the CRs and sent it to see what
happens. I get the same result: = signs at each fold point.
Those = signs
-- Doug
> On Apr 24, 2024, at 09:05, John Levine via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> It appears that Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> said:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:01:46AM -0000, John Levine via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I must
Greetings,
I've been running an ipv4-only postfix system for years, and have dialed
in a set of SMTP access/relay controls that work well for my use case.
I've avoided enabling ipv6 because its lack had yet to cause an issue,
and due to what I'm given to understand has been the wild-west
Jack Raats via Postfix-users:
> In the Netherlands but also in other countries you can use internet.nl
> to test your e-mail and webserver.
> It test your e-mailserver for ipv6 connectivity, SPF, DMARC and DKIM.
>
> My mailserver scores sometimes 100%, but also sometime
In the Netherlands but also in other countries you can use internet.nl
to test your e-mail and webserver.
It test your e-mailserver for ipv6 connectivity, SPF, DMARC and DKIM.
My mailserver scores sometimes 100%, but also sometimes lower because it
cann't connect postfix on ipv6.
In main.cf
we want it :-)
Have a nice weekend
tobi
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 01:46 -0400, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 07:21:24AM +0200, Tobi via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Or would it be possible to use a sender_dependent_relayhost_maps
> >
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 07:21:24AM +0200, Tobi via Postfix-users wrote:
> Or would it be possible to use a sender_dependent_relayhost_maps and
> define just the transport ex smtps: (without nexthop) in there so
> postfix would use that transport (to be defined in master.cf) and the
&g
Hi
I wonder if it is possible in postfix client to enforce usage of TLS
based on sender. Just like in smtp_tls_policy_maps but based on sender
of the message and not on rcpt or nexthop. The only way I can see so
far is to setup another postfix instance with smtp_tls_security_level =
encrypt
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vqwxx2jpbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|> * For smfi_chgheader, filter order is important. Later
|>filters will see the header changes made by earlier ones.
|
|Yes, that is fundamental to the way that the Milter API works. E
> * For smfi_chgheader, filter order is important. Later
>filters will see the header changes made by earlier ones.
Yes, that is fundamental to the way that the Milter API works. Each
Milter "inspects" the header and body content that exists after
Postfix and previ
cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed);
dmarc=pass (Used From Domain Record) header.from=porcupine.org
policy.dmarc=none
On 25.04.24 19:19, Peter via Postfix
1 - 100 of 5024 matches
Mail list logo
