Re: Same address delivering to multiple mailboxes
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Sean Holdsworth wrote: Suppose I have a catchall delivery for a (virtual) domain into a mailbox: @domain = A I also have a couple of other addresses in the same domain delivering to their own mailboxes: p...@domain = B p...@domain = C So far so good, easy to set up and things work as expected. Now for the complication. In addition to the fully qualified addresses delivering to their own mailboxes I require a copy of this mail delivered into the catchall mailbox: p...@domain = B, A p...@domain = C, A Now, providing I'm prepared to do an address rewrite I can set this up as follows: virtual_alias_maps = hash:virtual_aliases virtual_mailbox_maps = hash:virtual_mailbox_recipients virtual_aliases: p...@domain p...@domain catch...@domain p...@domain p...@domain catch...@domain Add: @domain catch...@domain virtual_mailbox_recipients: @domain A Modify the LHS above to catch...@domain. transport: domain smtp:[MTA] Instead of that, just simplify things and configure the transport for catch...@domain. p...@domain virtual p...@domain virtual This does not appear to be appropriate transport(5) syntax, and if you configure a transport for catch...@domain, then you don't even need to explicitly specify p1 and p2; their virtual_transport should default to virtual(8). I've tried various work arounds without success. The one that seems most natural, but which DOES NOT WORK, is the following: Can you show 'postconf -n' and your actual transport maps, virtual alias and mailbox files? If you must obfuscate for privacy reasons, please be consistent about it. Some related logging would also help provide context and aid troubleshooting. Also let us know if you need to preserve the original envelope recipient information when transporting catchall messages to the other server. -- Sahil Tandon sa...@tandon.net
Re: postfix's sendmail equivalent to mailertable problem
I have gone through the postfix docs on the main website. Understanding how it works is my problem. I have just installed postfix and would want it to relay outgoing mail to my smart host and for all mail it receives for my domains to my internal exchange server. I will check the DEBUG_README, and see where that gets me. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Sahil Tandon sa...@tandon.net wrote: On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Jason X, Maney jsxmo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I am much of a newbie to postfix and need some help please. I know that what I am about to ask has been covered already on this list but I just can not get a head start. I am looking to have my postfix acting as a gateway for my exchange. On sendmail I know I would use mailertable, please help i am stuck Have you read the docs? If so, which one's? How are you stuck? What have you tried? What occurred and how was that different from your expectations? Sorry for answering your questions with more questions, but please read the DEBUG_README before following up.
Re: Same address delivering to multiple mailboxes
Sean Holdsworth a écrit : [snip] If I allow that address rewite then mail for p...@domain or p...@domain will get sent on to the MTA with an envelope recipient address of catch...@domain rather than their original recipient address. I've tried various work arounds without success. The one that seems most natural, but which DOES NOT WORK, is the following: virtual_aliases: p...@domain @domain p...@domain p...@domain @domain p...@domain This results in mail for either address only arriving in their own mailbox. Is there another approach to this that I'm missing? you want smtp_generic_maps.
OT: Honor case in reply to address
I know that this has nothing directly to do with Postfix; however, I figured the fastest way to get a serviceable answer would be here. I maintain a few Yahoo groups. I just received a bulletin from Yahoo regarding the updating of their 'Groups'. quote Also in this release is a fix for group moderators who were having issues approving pending messages via email. Moderators affected by this issue were using email clients that (in violation of internet standards) do not honor case in reply to addresses, meaning that they would turn upper case letters into lowercase. Since the codes that enable email moderation to work relied on the reply address being the exact sequence of characters we were expecting, email moderation commands did not work for these users. But we have now updated our code in a way that will enable email moderation to work for even these email clients, which should allow moderators to approve pending messages and members via email once again. /quote I was, perhaps incorrectly, of the opinion that case was not relevant in e-mail addresses. I thought that there was an RFC that mentioned this; although I cannot find one that specifically mentions case folding on the reply to address. Is Yahoo's claim correct or are they simply trying to cover up for a problem on their end? -- -- Jerry postfix.u...@yahoo.com TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html Believe everything you hear about the world; nothing is too impossibly bad. Honore DeBalzac
pcre:table client_restrictions
Dear colleagues,
kindly looking for your assistence in the following matter.
To cut off the spamers, I intended to use pcre:table.
main.cf :
cut on
...
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_client_access pcre:/usr/local/etc/postfix/exper,
...
cut off
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# cat exper
/(.*(\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3}).*\[.*(?:\3\.\2|\2\.\3.*).*\].*)/
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender $1, please, use SMTP server of
your provider
/pppoe/ REJECT pppoe# It's for debugging
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177], please, use
SMTP server of your provider
so the postmap shows that the first line is working
eug...@home [/home/eugene] telnet some.mail.host 25
Trying aa.bbb.ccc.dd...
Connected to some.mail.host.
Escape character is '^]'.
554 5.7.1 ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177]:
Client host rejected: pppoe
the debuging rule is working instead the of first one.
Why does the postfix ignore the first rule?
--
Eugene
Re: OT: Honor case in reply to address
On 2009-11-21 Jerry wrote: I know that this has nothing directly to do with Postfix; however, I figured the fastest way to get a serviceable answer would be here. I maintain a few Yahoo groups. I just received a bulletin from Yahoo regarding the updating of their 'Groups'. quote Also in this release is a fix for group moderators who were having issues approving pending messages via email. Moderators affected by this issue were using email clients that (in violation of internet standards) do not honor case in reply to addresses, meaning that they would turn upper case letters into lowercase. Since the codes that enable email moderation to work relied on the reply address being the exact sequence of characters we were expecting, email moderation commands did not work for these users. But we have now updated our code in a way that will enable email moderation to work for even these email clients, which should allow moderators to approve pending messages and members via email once again. /quote I was, perhaps incorrectly, of the opinion that case was not relevant in e-mail addresses. I thought that there was an RFC that mentioned this; although I cannot find one that specifically mentions case folding on the reply to address. Is Yahoo's claim correct or are they simply trying to cover up for a problem on their end? Quoting from chapter 2.4 of RFC 2821: | Verbs and argument values (e.g., TO: or to: in the RCPT command | and extension name keywords) are not case sensitive, with the sole | exception in this specification of a mailbox local-part (SMTP | Extensions may explicitly specify case-sensitive elements). That is, | a command verb, an argument value other than a mailbox local-part, and | free form text MAY be encoded in upper case, lower case, or any | mixture of upper and lower case with no impact on its meaning. This | is NOT true of a mailbox local-part. The local-part of a mailbox MUST | BE treated as case sensitive. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning. --Joel Spolsky
Re: pcre:table client_restrictions
* Eugene V. Boontseff eug...@home.wdc.spb.ru:
Dear colleagues,
kindly looking for your assistence in the following matter.
To cut off the spamers, I intended to use pcre:table.
WOuldn't it be easier to use an RBL instead?
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_client_access pcre:/usr/local/etc/postfix/exper,
...
cut off
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# cat exper
/(.*(\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3}).*\[.*(?:\3\.\2|\2\.\3.*).*\].*)/
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender $1, please, use SMTP server of
your provider
/pppoe/ REJECT pppoe# It's for debugging
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177], please, use
SMTP server of your provider
so the postmap shows that the first line is working
Nope. Postfix hands down the IP and it hands down the hostname IF the
hostname resolves back and forth.
eug...@home [/home/eugene] telnet some.mail.host 25
Trying aa.bbb.ccc.dd...
Connected to some.mail.host.
Escape character is '^]'.
554 5.7.1 ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177]:
Client host rejected: pppoe
the debuging rule is working instead the of first one.
Why does the postfix ignore the first rule?
I'd think the regexp is wrong
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
Re: pcre:table client_restrictions
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Eugene V. Boontseff eug...@home.wdc.spb.ru:
Dear colleagues,
kindly looking for your assistence in the following matter.
To cut off the spamers, I intended to use pcre:table.
WOuldn't it be easier to use an RBL instead?
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_client_access pcre:/usr/local/etc/postfix/exper,
...
cut off
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# cat exper
/(.*(\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3}).*\[.*(?:\3\.\2|\2\.\3.*).*\].*)/
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender $1, please, use SMTP server of
your provider
/pppoe/ REJECT pppoe# It's for debugging
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177], please, use
SMTP server of your provider
so the postmap shows that the first line is working
Nope. Postfix hands down the IP and it hands down the hostname IF the
hostname resolves back and forth.
Yes, I know.
eug...@home [/home/eugene] telnet some.mail.host 25
Trying aa.bbb.ccc.dd...
Connected to some.mail.host.
Escape character is '^]'.
554 5.7.1 ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177]:
Client host rejected: pppoe
the debuging rule is working instead the of first one.
Why does the postfix ignore the first rule?
I'd think the regexp is wrong
Why this regexp is wrong for postfix, but isn't wrong for postmap?
Re: pcre:table client_restrictions
Eugene V. Boontseff wrote:
Dear colleagues,
kindly looking for your assistence in the following matter.
To cut off the spamers, I intended to use pcre:table.
main.cf :
cut on
...
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_client_access pcre:/usr/local/etc/postfix/exper,
...
cut off
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# cat exper
/(.*(\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3})[\.-](\d{1,3}).*\[.*(?:\3\.\2|\2\.\3.*).*\].*)/
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender $1, please, use SMTP server of
your provider
/pppoe/ REJECT pppoe# It's for debugging
eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq
ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper
554 5.7.1 Dynamic sender
Try it with ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru -- that's what smtpd
is using.
/mjt
Re: pcre:table client_restrictions
Eugene V. Boontseff: eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper Use ppp92.. not ppp92... Wietse
Re: pcre:table client_restrictions
* Eugene V. Boontseff eug...@home.wdc.spb.ru: eug...@mail [/usr/local/etc/postfix]# postmap -fq ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] pcre:exper I'd think the regexp is wrong Why this regexp is wrong for postfix, but isn't wrong for postmap? postfix matches the HOSTNAME: ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru and/or the IP 92.100.127.177 not ppp92-100-127-177.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru[92.100.127.177] -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebra...@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
a test user account with postfix
hi all
hi list
hello, I carry on my installation of postfix, a test user account in which the
test user account I reserve the right to grant or not the test account
I would like to do safely
I do not find myself on the black list RBLs after 24 hours
I quote this message on the list postfix
Re: reject_sender_login_mismatch for client certificates
De :
Jan P. Kessler post...@*
À :
Florian Wagner flor...@*
CC :
postfix-users@postfix.org
Date :
2009-06-08 14:58
that talks about this software
postfwd (a policy daemon found at http://www.postfwd.org) will do this
with a ruleset like:
I quote the entirety of the message to request special assistance I seek
TLS_DENY { REJECT wrong tls fingerprint for sender '$$sender'; };
sender==...@domain.tld ; ccert_fingerprint==!!(AA:BB:CC:DD:EE) ;
action=TLS_DENY
sender==al...@domain.tld ; ccert_fingerprint==!!(EE:DD:CC:BB:AA) ;
action=TLS_DENY
...
how do we know for the ccert_fingerprint. his and those of the tester
I have used CentOS utility gen-key hostname to generate the key pair
I do not know if this software is the tool I need for my test account
and help me I do not know how to get to me and the tester, the
ccert_fingerprint
and please help me how to walk properly this software
thanks all
thanks for all your feedbacks
SL
Re: OT: Honor case in reply to address
On Nov 21, 2009, at 5:04, Jerry postfix.u...@yahoo.com wrote: Is Yahoo's claim correct or are they simply trying to cover up for a problem on their end? As stated, yahoo is at least misleading. Case MUST be honored in the user name portion (before the @ ). Otherwise, email assesses are not case sensitive. Yahho.com YAHOO.COM YaHoO.cOm are all valid.
Re: OT: Honor case in reply to address
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 07:04:25AM -0500, Jerry wrote: I was, perhaps incorrectly, of the opinion that case was not relevant in e-mail addresses. I thought that there was an RFC that mentioned this; although I cannot find one that specifically mentions case folding on the reply to address. Message handling systems MUST preserve case, systems delivering messages to a mailbox SHOULD ignore case. Is Yahoo's claim correct or are they simply trying to cover up for a problem on their end? Their claim is not wrong, but it is wiser to design systems that avoid this problem. RFC 5321 Section 2.4 Verbs and argument values (e.g., TO: or to: in the RCPT command and extension name keywords) are not case sensitive, with the sole exception in this specification of a mailbox local-part (SMTP Extensions may explicitly specify case-sensitive elements). That is, a command verb, an argument value other than a mailbox local-part, and free form text MAY be encoded in upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and lower case with no impact on its meaning. The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive. Therefore, SMTP implementations MUST take care to preserve the case of mailbox local-parts. In particular, for some hosts, the user smith is different from the user Smith. However, exploiting the case sensitivity of mailbox local-parts impedes interoperability and is discouraged. Mailbox domains follow normal DNS rules and are hence not case sensitive. -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
RE: About SMTP Auth with Mysql
Hi, (212.58.4.184,212.58.4.247) not worked (212.58.4.184:3306,212.58.4.247:3306)query arrive to 4.247 but not to 184 212.58.4.184:3306,212.58.4.247:3306 query arrive to 4.184 but not to 247 212.58.4.184:3306 212.58.4.247:3306 query arrive to 4.184 but not to 247 sql_hostnames: 212.58.4.184 212.58.4.247 query arrive to 4.184 but not to 247 Regards Vahric -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Ben Koetter Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:41 PM To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: About SMTP Auth with Mysql * Vahriç Muhtaryan vah...@doruk.net.tr: I tried without parentheses like 212.58.4.184:3306,212.58.4.247:3306 Also tried like this 212.58.4.184:3306 212.58.4.247:3306 3306 is default for mysql. Try without. p...@rick -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 6:05 PM To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: About SMTP Auth with Mysql On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:55:20 +0200 Vahriç Muhtaryan vah...@doruk.net.tr replied: Hello, I have multiple database which have username and pass informations I would like to use postfix as a centeral smtp auth server for all but something I can not do it log_level: 7 pwcheck_method: auxprop auxprop_plugin: sql mech_list: plain login sql_engine: mysql sql_hostnames: (212.58.4.184:3306,212.58.4.247:3306) sql_user: postfix sql_passwd: your-password sql_database: postfix sql_select: select clear from postfix_smtp where email='%...@%r' if I write down only sql_hostnames:212.58.4.184 or sql_hostnames:212.58.4.247 its working, but when I try to use sql_hostnames: (212.58.4.184:3306,212.58.4.247:3306) its not working From cyrus , I check that its okay and before I tested and it was working but right now no ! http://asyd.net/docs/cyrus-options.html sql_hostnamesSQL plugin Comma separated list of SQL servers (in host[:port] format). none (engine dependent) any experiance about related issue ? Maybe you should lose the opening/closing parentheses. -- Jerry postfix.u...@yahoo.com TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html Ya know, Quaker Oats make you feel good twice! -- All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answered on the list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely required and justified. saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/
Design: sender-dependent default_transport
Recently there have been requests for sending mail with source IP addresses that depend on the envelope sender. Sometimes the request appeared to be related to showshoe spamming, and sometimes it appeared to be a legitimate attempt to protect IP-based domain reputations of different customers. Current solution The current solution that Postfix offers is to use multiple instances: one back-end instance per source IP address, and one front-end instance that uses sender_dependent_relayhost_maps to choose the right back-end instance. That is a heavy solution, even though Postfix 2.6 multi-instance support hides most of the complexity. Past solutions == Attempts to modify existing features for this job make Postfix harder to explain, or have negative performance impact for content inspection as with a recent proposal to change the meaning of a FILTER actions with an empty destination (this would replace FIFO selection by domain-based round-robin selection). Going back in time, the old Postfix sender_dependent_routing feature was withdrawn a few years ago because it replaced ALL mail routing decisions by sender-based routing. That broke deliveries to local recipients, and was therefore not good for a general-purpose MTA. A promising solution The solution is not to make ALL routing decisions dependent on the sender address, but ONLY the routing decisions for mail that leaves the machine. A sender-dependent default_transport would change the meaning of default_transport (namely, giving default_transport a lower precedence than sender_dependent_default_transport_maps) and introduces a few new parameters. (It looks like a sender-dependent default_transport would do the job. It does not seem to make sense to make relay_transport also sender-dependent, because relay_transport is supposed to be used only for domains Postfix is MX host for.) The draft design looks like this: default_transport (default: smtp) The default mail delivery transport and next-hop destination for desti- nations that do not match $mydestination, $inet_interfaces, $proxy_interfaces, $virtual_alias_domains, $virtual_mailbox_domains, or $relay_domains. In order of decreasing precedence, the nexthop desti- nation is taken from $default_transport, $sender_dependent_relay- host_maps, $relayhost, or from the recipient domain. This information can be overruled with the sender_dependent_default_transport_maps parameter and with the transport(5) table. Specify a string of the form transport:nexthop, where transport is the name of a mail delivery transport defined in master.cf. The :nexthop part is optional. For more details see the transport(5) manual page. Example: default_transport = uucp:relayhostname sender_dependent_default_transport_maps (default: empty) A sender-dependent override for the global default_transport parameter setting. The tables are searched by the envelope sender address and @domain. A lookup result of DUNNO terminates the search without over- riding the global default_transport parameter setting. This informa- tion is overruled with the transport(5) table. For safety reasons, this feature does not allow $number substitutions in regular expression maps. This feature is available in Postfix 2.7 and later. empty_address_default_transport_maps_lookup_key (default: ) The sender_dependent_default_transport_maps search string that will be used instead of the null sender address. This feature is available in Postfix 2.7 and later. address_verify_sender_dependent_default_transport_maps (default: empty) Overrides the sender_dependent_default_transport_maps parameter setting for address verification probes. This feature is available in Postfix 2.7 and later. A first stab at some code looks promising. I'll run tests as time is available, but I am currently busy with reviewing research proposals, and that will take most cycles until early December. Wietse
Time a message is queued until a warning email is sent
Hello, I know that maximal_queue_lifetime is the time a message is queued before it is sent back as undeliverable, however what is the configuration option for how long a message is attempted to be delivered, before a warning message is sent to the original sender saying Hey, this message has been queued for X hours and I haven't been able to deliver it.?
Re: Time a message is queued until a warning email is sent
2009/11/22 Russell Jones rjo...@eggycrew.com: I know that maximal_queue_lifetime is the time a message is queued before it is sent back as undeliverable, however what is the configuration option for how long a message is attempted to be delivered, before a warning message is sent to the original sender saying Hey, this message has been queued for X hours and I haven't been able to deliver it.? Sounds like you want the delay warning time: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#delay_warning_time
Re: Time a message is queued until a warning email is sent
On 11/21/2009 9:22 PM, Russell Jones wrote: Hello, I know that maximal_queue_lifetime is the time a message is queued before it is sent back as undeliverable, however what is the configuration option for how long a message is attempted to be delivered, before a warning message is sent to the original sender saying Hey, this message has been queued for X hours and I haven't been able to deliver it.? http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#delay_warning_time
Re: Design: sender-dependent default_transport
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:11:06PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: [ Robust/neat idea to support sender dependent transport selection. ] sender_dependent_default_transport_maps (default: empty) A sender-dependent override for the global default_transport parameter setting. The tables are searched by the envelope sender address and @domain. A lookup result of DUNNO terminates the search without over- riding the global default_transport parameter setting. This informa- tion is overruled with the transport(5) table. Is DUNNO the right choice here? This is not an access(5) table, and DUNNO may muddy the user's understanding or expectations? If we really want to allow one to make exceptions for specific users or sub-domains without explicitly specifying the default transport, I think that: except.example.com DEFAULT example.com transport:nexthop or perhaps except.example.com : example.com transport:nexthop is even intuitive, with the latter choice matching similar behaviour in transport(5). -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
Re: Time a message is queued until a warning email is sent
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:22:21PM -0600, Russell Jones wrote: I know that maximal_queue_lifetime is the time a message is queued before it is sent back as undeliverable, however what is the configuration option for how long a message is attempted to be delivered, before a warning message is sent to the original sender saying Hey, this message has been queued for X hours and I haven't been able to deliver it.? http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#delay_warning_time -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
Re: Design: sender-dependent default_transport
On 11/21/2009 9:54 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote: On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:11:06PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: [ Robust/neat idea to support sender dependent transport selection. ] sender_dependent_default_transport_maps (default: empty) A sender-dependent override for the global default_transport parameter setting. The tables are searched by the envelope sender address and @domain. A lookup result of DUNNO terminates the search without over- riding the global default_transport parameter setting. This informa- tion is overruled with the transport(5) table. Is DUNNO the right choice here? This is not an access(5) table, and DUNNO may muddy the user's understanding or expectations? If we really want to allow one to make exceptions for specific users or sub-domains without explicitly specifying the default transport, I think that: except.example.com DEFAULT example.com transport:nexthop No, adding a new magic result is not the solution. or perhaps except.example.com : example.com transport:nexthop is even intuitive, with the latter choice matching similar behaviour in transport(5). I like this.+1 for : -- Noel Jones
Re: Time a message is queued until a warning email is sent
Thank you! Barney Desmond wrote: 2009/11/22 Russell Jones rjo...@eggycrew.com: I know that maximal_queue_lifetime is the time a message is queued before it is sent back as undeliverable, however what is the configuration option for how long a message is attempted to be delivered, before a warning message is sent to the original sender saying "Hey, this message has been queued for X hours and I haven't been able to deliver it."? Sounds like you want the delay warning time: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#delay_warning_time
Sender ID Filtering
Could somebody recommend software that filters based on sender id reputation. I am refering to the sender id that microsoft uses as opposed to SPF. Thanks in advance
