[pfx] Re: GMail is rejecting mail I forward

2023-10-31 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
gt;> This way, even forwarding using ~user/.forward will get SRS'ed. >>> >>> However, any mail from foreign domains without DKIM may still get rejected. > > On 29.10.23 11:57, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: >> I run a similar mail server. I use SRS an

[pfx] Re: GMail is rejecting mail I forward

2023-10-29 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
-- Doug > On Oct 29, 2023, at 10:59, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On 29.10.23 16:43, Robert Inder via Postfix-users wrote: >> For 10 years now I've been running a Linux (CentOS 7) server, using >> Postfix to handle mail for a handful of users. >> Specifically, I'm

[pfx] Debugging options

2023-03-19 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
Is there a debug setting that will show which tables are searched when an incoming email is received and delivered to a mailbox? -- Doug ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[pfx] Blocked Sender

2023-03-26 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
I have a specific email sender that is getting the error "Sender addresses rejected: Domain not found". Sure enough DNS provides no response for that domain. If I drop off the first part of the domain name, then DNS returns a response. However, the organization is using the complete name

[pfx] Re: Blocked Sender

2023-03-26 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 14:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:15:27PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >> Thanks Viktor. I went with the first approach and am getting errors: &

[pfx] Re: Blocked Sender

2023-03-26 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 13:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 12:52:01PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >> I don't want to remove the "reject_unknown_sender_domain" function as >> it gets used properl

[pfx] Re: Blocked Sender

2023-03-26 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
-- Doug > On Mar 26, 2023, at 15:04, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:53:42PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote: > >>> inline:{{digitalinsight.firefightersfirstcreditunion.org = >>> permit_auth_destination}} >>> or >>> >>>

[pfx] Re: Debugging options

2023-03-20 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Mar 19, 2023, at 18:26, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 03:48:07PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >> Is there a debug setting that will show which tables are searched when >> an incoming email is received

[pfx] Reply To header

2023-04-28 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
I have an app that sends SMTP to post fix to deliver an email. The first line it sends after the DATA command is a Reply To line. However, that causes postfix to terminate the headers and puts the Reply To line after the blank line at the end of theheaders. As a result, none of the following

[pfx] Re: Reply To header

2023-04-29 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 29, 2023, at 00:06, Roger Klorese via Postfix-users > wrote: > > Reply-To, not Reply To. > What a bone-head mistake. Thanks. Now it works just fine. -- Doug ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe

[pfx] Re: Reply To header

2023-04-29 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 23:13, Noel Jones via Postfix-users > wrote: > > > >> On Apr 29, 2023, at 12:43 AM, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users >> wrote: >> >> I have an app that sends SMTP to post fix to deliver an email. The first >> line it se

[pfx] Re: Blocked Sender

2023-03-27 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 16:23, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > >> ... > > Well, this does not have the "inline:{{...}}" guard. > >>> incoming_smtpd_restrictions = >>> check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10040, >>> reject_invalid_hostname, >>>

[pfx] Re: Headers and Forwarding

2023-04-08 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 11:59, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >> A couple of questions. Looking in the postfix generated Received: >> header, the SMTP id often has a

[pfx] Re: Headers and Forwarding

2023-04-08 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 13:15, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >>>> Are there any others and how close am I? >>> >>> >>> https://www.iana.org/

[pfx] Headers and Forwarding

2023-04-08 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
A couple of questions. Looking in the postfix generated Received: header, the SMTP id often has a few other letters included: ESMTPA etc. I am guessing that the extra letters mean: E - EHLO used rather the HELO S - SSL was used in the connection A - the originator

[pfx] Re: Behaviour change between 3.2.2 and 3.7.4?

2023-05-02 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On May 2, 2023, at 16:14, kwoody--- via Postfix-users > wrote: > >>> Log for the nightly cron job run: >>> >>> 03:01:09 mail sendmail[10703]: 342A19Wv010703: from=root, >> size=14672, >>> class=0, nrcpts=1, >>> msgid=<202305021001.342a19wv010...@mail.citytel.net>, >>> relay=root@localhost >>

[pfx] Re: ARC or DKIM or SRS?

2024-02-08 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Feb 8, 2024, at 01:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On 07.02.24 21:51, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote: >> +1 on setting up SRS, it helps with Gmail and I believe ARC does too >> (although I don't have hard data on this). Interesting note about postgrey, >>

[pfx] Understanding log entries

2024-02-10 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
I used Viktor's collate to trace a specific email handling. There were a number of these entries. However, I am only showing 2 of them: Feb 10 03:15:40 mail postfix/smtp[60428]: 4TWjVT5qz7z2gF8w: to=, orig_to=, relay=mx01.t-online.de[194.25.134.72]:25, delay=59371, delays=59369/0.02/1.5/0,

[pfx] Re: Understanding log entries

2024-02-10 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Feb 10, 2024, at 15:55, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users > wrote: > > Doug Hardie via Postfix-users: >> I used Viktor's collate to trace a specific email handling. There were a >> number of these entries. However, I am only showing 2 of them: >> >

[pfx] Re: ARC or DKIM or SRS?

2024-02-07 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 17:23, Alex via Postfix-users > wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm hoping I could ask for some advice. We have a pretty large percentage of > users who forward mail through our systems to personal Gmail accounts. > Sometimes it is mail from bulk senders like mailgun and

[pfx] Logging received from address

2023-12-09 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
I am using postfix with postsrsd. Is there a way for postfix to log the from address as originally received? The only addresses I find in postfix's log are the converted addresses from postsrsd. Both addresses are logged by postsrsd, but there is no way to tie it back to the postfix logs for

[pfx] postsrsd

2023-12-06 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
I just upgraded FreeBSD from 13.2 to 14.0. Postfix just picked up and ran fine. However postsrsd is causing me a few issues. I get the impression that postsrsd got updated, but I can't tell for sure. At the moment, the version is 2.0.8. The config files (conf and conf.sample) all had dates

[pfx] Re: postsrsd

2023-12-06 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
Not that I can find > On Dec 6, 2023, at 02:49, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users > wrote: > > Dnia 6.12.2023 o godz. 01:00:21 Doug Hardie via Postfix-users pisze: >> The config files (conf and conf.sample) all had dates >> of 14 Nov so I suspect they were repl

[pfx] Re: postsrsd

2023-12-07 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 23:48, patpro--- via Postfix-users > wrote: > > December 6, 2023 10:00 AM, "Doug Hardie via Postfix-users" > wrote: > >> I just upgraded FreeBSD from 13.2 to 14.0. Postfix just picked up and ran >> fine. However posts

[pfx] Re: postsrsd

2023-12-07 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Dec 7, 2023, at 00:27, patpro--- via Postfix-users > wrote: > > December 7, 2023 9:12 AM, "Doug Hardie via Postfix-users" > wrote: > >> Indeed: postsrsd upgraded: 1.10 -> 2.0.8_1,1 > > OK. I’m still running 1.10 : it does not use a config fil

[pfx] Re: postsrsd

2023-12-06 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
to think about what it should be doing ;-) -- Doug > On Dec 6, 2023, at 09:07, Bill Cole via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On 2023-12-06 at 04:00:21 UTC-0500 (Wed, 6 Dec 2023 01:00:21 -0800) > Doug Hardie via Postfix-users > is rumored to have said: > >> I just upgrade

[pfx] Mail text wrapping

2024-04-22 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
This is probably not the right place to be asking this as it is not directly Postfix related, but I don't know a better group to ask. For years I have sent text messages and just let the lines run on. Only inserting a \n for the start of a new paragraph. I never exceed the 988 line length

[pfx] Re: Mail text wrapping

2024-04-23 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 23:31, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On 22.04.24 22:55, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: >> This is probably not the right place to be asking this as it is not directly >> Postfix related, but I don't know a better gr

[pfx] Re: Mail text wrapping

2024-04-23 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> On Apr 23, 2024, at 12:08, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:46:22AM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote: > >>> RFC 3676 addresses this. >> >> That was an amazing and helpful response. RFC 2045 showed exact

[pfx] Re: Fun with line endings, was Re: Mail text wrapping

2024-04-28 Thread Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
-- 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 -, John Levine via Postfix-users >> wrote: >> I must be interpreting this wrong because it appears