Re: Keeping a copy of all mail, and then removing headers from outbound
What I'm trying to achieve is for Postfix to deliver a copy to a local IMAP account, and then remove our internal/private headers before passing the mail on to the relay host. The idea is for some custom software to read the copy from the IMAP account, using the interal/private headers for integration with other systems. Use smtp_header_checks=pcre:/path/to/file to remove the headers from outbound mail. If you also use LMTP or SMTP to deliver local IMAP accounts, one extra step is needed. I'm not going to complicate the solution if this step is not needed. Wietse Yes, I'm using LMTP for delivering the bcc copy to an IMAP account, so please tell me about the extra step. :) From main.cf: always_bcc=myaccount mailbox_transport = lmtp:unix:/var/lib/imap/socket/lmtp relayhost=[smtp.sendgrid.net]:587 Mail sent to custo...@example.com via Postfix should be copied to the myaccount IMAP account with all it's original headers, but I want to remove the X-Cusomer-ID (and possible some others) from the mail when it's delivered to the external relayhost. -- Lars Preben Sørsdahl lars.preben.no
Re: Keeping a copy of all mail, and then removing headers from outbound
Lars Preben S?rsdahl: What I'm trying to achieve is for Postfix to deliver a copy to a local IMAP account, and then remove our internal/private headers before passing the mail on to the relay host. The idea is for some custom software to read the copy from the IMAP account, using the interal/private headers for integration with other systems. Wietse: Use smtp_header_checks=pcre:/path/to/file to remove the headers from outbound mail. If you also use LMTP or SMTP to deliver local IMAP accounts, one extra step is needed. I'm not going to complicate the solution if this step is not needed. Lars Preben S?rsdahl: Yes, I'm using LMTP for delivering the bcc copy to an IMAP account, so please tell me about the extra step. :) From main.cf: always_bcc=myaccount mailbox_transport = lmtp:unix:/var/lib/imap/socket/lmtp relayhost=[smtp.sendgrid.net]:587 In that case, it should be safe to have the option in main.cf, because LMTP mail delivery uses lmtp_header_checks instead of smtp_header_checks. /etc/postfix/main.cf: smtp_header_checks = pcre:/path/to/file Wietse
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
Wietse Venema: -X Edit the main.cf configuration file, and remove the parameters given on the postconf(1) command line. The file is copied to a temporary file then renamed into place. Specify a list of parameter names, not name=value pairs. There is no postconf(1) command to perform the reverse operation. Changed to -X for safety reaons. The action may result in loss of information and therefore should require a two-finger action. Updated feature patch (on source code mirrors): postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120308-postconf-X-patch postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120308-postconf-X-patch.sig This version should be final. Wietse
Question with Postfix and SPF
Hello, I have a question related with Postfix and SPF. I have a server configured to check SPF MTA. Two domains uses that MTA. When I receive an e-mail from outside (gmail / hotmail etc ...) the verification of SPF is ok. When sending an e-mail from a domain that exists in the MTA to another, the SPF isnt checked, nor any information is written on logs. E-mails exchanged between different domains on the same MTA should have their SPF checked?
Filters : How to change subject based on body?
Dear all, I need to be able to change subject based on message body. I would be very glad if someone had some advice on how to do that with postfix ? More precisely, what I want to do is : 1. Only emails for postmas...@mydomain.com should be concerned (headers filter) 2. Then based on body checks I would like to change the Subject, or add a custom header The aim is to be able to recognize the original sender of the failed mail so that I can handle them accordingly Any help would be greatly appreciated ! Denis
Re: Question with Postfix and SPF
Am 08.03.2012 16:44, schrieb Marcelo Vieira: I have a question related with Postfix and SPF. I have a server configured to check SPF MTA. Two domains uses that MTA. When I receive an e-mail from outside (gmail / hotmail etc ...) the verification of SPF is ok. When sending an e-mail from a domain that exists in the MTA to another, the SPF isnt checked, nor any information is written on logs. E-mails exchanged between different domains on the same MTA should have their SPF checked? you are not understanding what SPF means SENDER POLICY framework why should this affect internal communication or trusted senders (mynetwork) hopefully your machine trusts itself :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Filters : How to change subject based on body?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:49:24PM +0100, Denis BUCHER wrote: I need to be able to change subject based on message body. I would be very glad if someone had some advice on how to do that with postfix ? You cannot. And from reading the rest, I think you should not. More precisely, what I want to do is : 1. Only emails for postmas...@mydomain.com should be concerned (headers filter) Why the header? Mail routing is not done on the basis of mail headers. Why are you seeing these mails with this header? Also, if mydomain.com is intended as an example, please use example.com. Don't use real domains as examples. 2. Then based on body checks I would like to change the Subject, or add a custom header The aim is to be able to recognize the original sender of the failed mail so that I can handle them accordingly Failed mail? Why did it fail? I bet that is the real issue which requires your attention. You should elaborate on the actual problem you are trying to solve, and show us the logs, postconf -n, and other relevant information about it. http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting Offlist GMX mail is seen only if /dev/rob0 is in the Subject:
Re: Question with Postfix and SPF
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:44:55 PM Marcelo Vieira wrote: Hello, I have a question related with Postfix and SPF. I have a server configured to check SPF MTA. Two domains uses that MTA. When I receive an e-mail from outside (gmail / hotmail etc ...) the verification of SPF is ok. When sending an e-mail from a domain that exists in the MTA to another, the SPF isnt checked, nor any information is written on logs. E-mails exchanged between different domains on the same MTA should have their SPF checked? You should probably take this up on an SPF related list. See http://www.openspf.org/Forums for information on how to subscribe to the spf- help mailing list. Scott K
Re: Question with Postfix and SPF
Marcelo Vieira: Hello, I have a question related with Postfix and SPF. I have a server configured to check SPF MTA. Two domains uses that MTA. When I receive an e-mail from outside (gmail / hotmail etc ...) the verification of SPF is ok. When sending an e-mail from a domain that exists in the MTA to another, the SPF isnt checked, SPF is concerned with the details of an SMTP session (primarily, the sender IP address, and the HELO command). SMTP is not normally used to deliver mail between domains on the same MTA. In the absence of an SMTP sesion, there will be no SMTP session details to check. nor any information is written on logs. On the contrary, Postfix logs profusely what is happening, but none of that involves SMTP. E-mails exchanged between different domains on the same MTA should have their SPF checked? How is that supposed to work, absent SMTP session details? Wietse
Strange behavior of Postfix?
A childhood friend of mine have this problem: He can send mails to his mailing list server only with RoundCube, but with another Client[Squirrelmail, Thunderbird, ClawsMail or Micro$oft Outlook doesn´t], and I don´t know what´s happening. I post below his main.cf. Mailman if configured and working, when you send a mail to a list, postfix give a user unknown error[the user of the list], but with RoundCube works as a sunshine. So I don´t know what might be happening there. I hope you can help me because the issue is tricky to me too. main.cf smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name Debian GNU/Linux biff = no # Appending domain is the MUA's job. append_dot_mydomain = no readme_directory = no # Bounce template bounce_template_file = /etc/postfix/warnings/bounce.msg # Debug debug_peer_level = 4 debug_peer_list = $mynetworks # Net interfaces inet_interfaces = all inet_protocols = all mynetworks_style = host mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 relayhost = mx.mydomain.cu myhostname = apolo.mydomain.cu mydomain = mail.mydomain.cu myorigin = $mydomain masquerade_domain = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_domains_maps.cf relay_domain = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_domains_maps.cf smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot smtpd_sasl_path = private/dovecot-auth #smtpd_sasl_path = smtpd smtpd_sasl_local_domain = $myhostname smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes broken_sasl_auth_clients= yes smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, warn_if_reject, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_non_fqdn_sender, hash:/etc/postfix/rules/spamaddrss smtpd_recipient_restrictions= permit_mynetworks, permit_auth_destination, permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mx_backup, reject_unauth_destination, reject_unlisted_recipient smtpd_tls_auth_only = no smtpd_use_tls = yes smtp_tls_note_starttls_offer= yes smtpd_tls_CAfile= /etc/ssl/certs/cacert.pem smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key smtpd_tls_loglevel = 5 smtpd_tls_received_header = yes smtpd_tls_session_cache_timeout = 3600s tls_random_source = dev:/dev/urandom smtpd_helo_required = yes disable_vrfy_command= yes smtp_sasl_auth_enable = no smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining smtpd_etrn_restrictions = reject body_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/body_checks, regexp:/etc/postfix/rules/avchk, pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/avchkre header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/header_checks, pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/headerchkmsg mime_header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/mime_header_checks smtpd_sender_login_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/rules/sender_login_checks smtp_mx_address_limit = 0 smtp_connect_timeout = 30 smtp_helo_timeout = 60s smtp_rcpt_timeout = 240s smtp_quit_timeout = 240s smtp_rset_timeout = 20s smtp_skip_4xx_greeting = yes smtp_skip_5xx_greeting = yes message_size_limit = 10485760 mailbox_size_limit = 10485760 recipient_delimiter = + smtpd_recipient_limit = 25 dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1 maximal_queue_lifetime = 4d delay_warning_time = 4h smtpd_error_sleep_time = 1s local_destination_concurrency_limit = 25 bounce_queue_lifetime = 4d alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases #mydestination = [He tried a lot of values here, but right now is empty, and still strange the behavior] transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport mailman_destination_recipient_limit = 1 owner_request_special = no virtual_mailbox_base= /home/vmail virtual_uid_maps= static:5000 virtual_gid_maps= static:5000 virtual_transport = dovecot virtual_alias_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_alias_maps.cf virtual_mailbox_domains = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_domains_maps.cf virtual_mailbox_maps= proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_mailbox_maps.cf show_user_unknown_table_name = no queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix command_directory = /usr/sbin daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix mail_owner= postfix default_privs = nobody unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 local_recipient_maps = $alias_maps, $virtual_mailbox_maps, proxy:unix:passwd.byname in_flow_delay = 1s home_mailbox= Maildir/ mail_spool_directory = /var/spool/mail debugger_command = PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin xxgdb $daemon_directory/$process_name $process_id sleep 5 sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq mailbox_command =
Re: Strange behavior of Postfix?
Leslie Le?n Sinclair: A childhood friend of mine have this problem: He can send mails to his mailing list server only with RoundCube, but with another Client[Squirrelmail, Thunderbird, ClawsMail or Micro$oft Outlook doesn?t], and I don?t know what?s happening. I post below his On the RECEIVING mail server side: 1) Show one maillog example of a good session. 2) Show one maillog example of a bad session. Wietse
Re: Strange behavior of Postfix?
On 3/8/2012 12:43 PM, Leslie León Sinclair wrote: A childhood friend of mine have this problem: He can send mails to his mailing list server only with RoundCube, but with another Client[Squirrelmail, Thunderbird, ClawsMail or Micro$oft Outlook doesn´t], and I don´t know what´s happening. I post below his main.cf. Mailman if configured and working, when you send a mail to a list, postfix give a user unknown error[the user of the list], but with RoundCube works as a sunshine. So I don´t know what might be happening there. I hope you can help me because the issue is tricky to me too. How to ask for help: http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail In particular, we need to see postconf -n output and postfix logs of one good session, and postfix logs of one failed session. main.cf ... masquerade_domain = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_domains_maps.cf relay_domain = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_domains_maps.cf the above two settings are probably a mistake. What is the intent of these? smtpd_recipient_restrictions= permit_mynetworks, permit_auth_destination, permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mx_backup, reject_unauth_destination, reject_unlisted_recipient This is wrong. Don't use permit_auth_destination in this context, and do not use permit_mx_backup. smtp_mx_address_limit = 0 This should be set at the default 5 or another fairly low number to protect against destinations with hundreds of MX hosts. smtpd_recipient_limit = 25 Be aware that setting the recipient limit low will increase load on your server. #mydestination = [He tried a lot of values here, but right now is empty, and still strange the behavior] Note there is a difference between empty and commented out. Commented out uses the default value of $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mydestination show_user_unknown_table_name = no This makes debugging harder. Set to yes until everything is working. local_recipient_maps = $alias_maps, $virtual_mailbox_maps, proxy:unix:passwd.byname virtual_mailbox_maps should never be included in local recipients. -- Noel Jones
Re: Strange behavior of Postfix?
The two sessions, below... 1) Show one maillog example of a good session. Mar 8 14:58:40 apolo postfix/pickup[26492]: C7A5356B4: uid=33 from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:40 apolo postfix/qmgr[2706]: C7A5356B4: from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu, size=553, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: localhost[127.0.0.1]: rcpt TO:les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: extract_addr: input: les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: smtpd_check_addr: addr=les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: ctable_locate: move existing entry key les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: extract_addr: in: les...@mail.mydomain.cu, result: les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: ctable_locate: move existing entry key les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: maps_find: recipient_canonical_maps: les...@mail.mydomain.cu: not found Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: mail_addr_find: les...@mail.mydomain.cu - (not found) Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: maps_find: canonical_maps: les...@mail.mydomain.cu: not found Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: mail_addr_find: les...@mail.mydomain.cu - (not found) Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: send attr key = les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: input attribute value: les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: dict_proxy_lookup: table=mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_alias_maps.cf flags=lock|fold_fix key=les...@mail.mydomain.cu - status=0 result=les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: maps_find: virtual_alias_maps: proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql/mysql_virtual_alias_maps.cf(0,lock|fold_fix): les...@mail.mydomain.cu = les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/smtpd[24204]: mail_addr_find: les...@mail.mydomain.cu - les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:58:42 apolo postfix/pipe[27511]: 9749456A7: to=les...@mail.mydomain.cu, relay=dovecot, delay=0.17, delays=0.13/0/0/0.04, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered via dovecot service) 2) Show one maillog example of a bad session. Mar 8 14:52:59 apolo postfix/smtpd[24202]: Read 52 chars: MAIL FROM:les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:52:59 apolo postfix/smtpd[24202]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[10.8.xxx.yyy]: 550 5.1.1 mail...@list.mydomain.cu: Recipient address rejected: User unknown; from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu to=mail...@list.mydomain.cu proto=ESMTP helo=[10.8.xxx.yyy] Participe en la XVI Convencioacute;n de Ingenieriacute;a y Arquitectura del 26 al 30 de noviembre de 2012. Habana, Cuba: http://www.congresouniversidad.cu Consulte la enciclopedia colaborativa cubana. http://www.ecured.cu
Re: Strange behavior of Postfix?
Am 08.03.2012 20:58, schrieb Leslie León Sinclair: 2) Show one maillog example of a bad session. Mar 8 14:52:59 apolo postfix/smtpd[24202]: Read 52 chars: MAIL FROM:les...@mail.mydomain.cu Mar 8 14:52:59 apolo postfix/smtpd[24202]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[10.8.xxx.yyy]: 550 5.1.1 mail...@list.mydomain.cu: Recipient address rejected: User unknown; from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu to=mail...@list.mydomain.cu proto=ESMTP helo=[10.8.xxx.yyy] a) do NOT pst DEBUG LOG unless requested, the above is ignored because unreadable b) this is not a full session - where is the connect signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Strange behavior of Postfix?
Leslie Le?n Sinclair: The two sessions, below... 1) Show one maillog example of a good session. Mar 8 14:58:40 apolo postfix/pickup[26492]: C7A5356B4: uid=33 from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu Please DO NOT send debug logging unless asked to do so. This mail is not received via SMTP. 2) Show one maillog example of a bad session. Mar 8 14:52:59 apolo postfix/smtpd[24202]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[10.8.xxx.yyy]: 550 5.1.1 mail...@list.mydomain.cu: Recipient address rejected: User unknown; from=les...@mail.mydomain.cu to=mail...@list.mydomain.cu proto=ESMTP helo=[10.8.xxx.yyy] This mail is received via SMTP. You have misconfigured the Postfix. He needs to follow instructions in the mailman documentation. Fixing this on the mailing list is a waste of everyone's time, because all he needs to do follow instructions. Wietse
postscreen scalability
How much traffic can postscreen handle? Each mail server in our cluster handles 800,000 to 1,000,000 messages per day. We typically have 60-120 smptd processes, with peaks as high as 320. Adding a greeting delay will result in a lot of open connections. Can postscreen handle this volume even with the postscreen_greet_wait value of 6 seconds? Would I need to use drop instead of enforce on my actions? Thanks, Dan
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: --On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:05 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Quanah Gibson-Mount: --On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:11 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Hi Wietse, I noted in my initial email why this is not desirable solution. I ignored your objection, because it made no sense to me. I have learned that is it better to ignore things that make no sense to me, than to fight them in a debate. I'm not sure why it made no sense to you. It's quite well explained and logical. # postconf -# policy_time_limit After: /etc/postfix/main.cf: # policy_time_limit = foo # policy_time_limit = bar The problem with this approach is that if you later re-enable the policy, it will not remove the #'d out entries. Over time, you could theoretically end up with numerous #'d entries for the parameter. Sorry, feature requests based on theoretical scenarios do not convince me. This is most definitely not a theoretical scenario. In fact, it is quite trivial to produce. In addition, the postconf -# option is at best a hack. Even the man page notes there's no reverse operation, which clearly illustrates it is at best a hack. It was changes made to postfix that created the entire issue that now exists in the first place. I do not think it unreasonable or something that makes no sense to ask that a method for fixing an issue that was created because of changes you made to postfix be implemented in a future release. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration Why cant you do it by hand???
Re: complex policy -- how best to implement in Postfix?
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:26:09PM -0500, Ben Rosengart wrote: Apologies. I'm thinking parts of this over and if I reanimate the thread, I will be sure to provide full context. Let me try this again. I want to rewrite *sender addresses* (preferably headers only) when these conditions are _all_ met: 1. Client is not in an ACL, 2. Sender matches a particular LDAP filter, or isn't in LDAP, _AND_ 3. Recipient is in $relay_domains. After squinting at this from different angles, my current thinking is that this is outside what Postfix is intended for, and it should be implemented in a milter -- if at all. What's annoying about doing it as a milter is that Postfix already knows how to determine all these things; only the glue language is missing. Thanks, -- Ben Rosengart Like all those possessing a library, Sendmail, Inc. Aurelian was aware that he was guilty of +1 718 431 3822 not knowing his in its entirety [...] -- Jorge Luis Borges NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
Re: postscreen scalability
Dan Lists: How much traffic can postscreen handle? Each mail server in our cluster handles 800,000 to 1,000,000 messages per day. We typically This is mainly limited by the whitelist database latency: the time needed to decide that a client is OK, and to hand off the connection to a real SMTP server process. In your example, postscreen would have to be able to do 10 lookups a second, but we all know that mail is not spread out evenly over a day, so 100 lookups/second would be more appropriate. If the number of distinct clients is not overwhelmingly large, putting a memcache between postscreen and the persistent whitelist database will help to reduce whitelist lookup latency. have 60-120 smptd processes, with peaks as high as 320. Adding a greeting delay will result in a lot of open connections. Can postscreen handle this volume even with the postscreen_greet_wait value of 6 seconds? Would I need to use drop instead of enforce on my actions? postscreen does not wait 6 seconds on all connections; that would be a terrible mistake. Wietse
Re: complex policy -- how best to implement in Postfix?
Ben Rosengart: On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:26:09PM -0500, Ben Rosengart wrote: Apologies. I'm thinking parts of this over and if I reanimate the thread, I will be sure to provide full context. Let me try this again. I want to rewrite *sender addresses* (preferably headers only) when these conditions are _all_ met: 1. Client is not in an ACL, 2. Sender matches a particular LDAP filter, or isn't in LDAP, _AND_ 3. Recipient is in $relay_domains. After squinting at this from different angles, my current thinking is that this is outside what Postfix is intended for, and it should be implemented in a milter -- if at all. What's annoying about doing it as a milter is that Postfix already knows how to determine all these things; only the glue language is missing. Exactly. I decided long ago that complex conditionals would be implemented outside of Postfix (the policy protocol); a similar decision was made for content manipulation (SMTP-based filters and Milters). Milter bindings exist for many scripting languages, so there is no need to re-invent those languages within of Postfix. Wietse
Re: complex policy -- how best to implement in Postfix?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:06:25PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:26:09PM -0500, Ben Rosengart wrote: I want to rewrite *sender addresses* (preferably headers only) when these conditions are _all_ met: 1. Client is not in an ACL, 2. Sender matches a particular LDAP filter, or isn't in LDAP, _AND_ 3. Recipient is in $relay_domains. [...] this is outside what Postfix is intended for, and it should be implemented in a milter [...] Exactly. I am wondering, though, how to handle the case where recipients are a mix of internal and external. This seems like an area where Postfix might supply some leverage. If, upstream, I separate the recipients into different transports, will this cause the upstream Postfix to split the envelope and send the mail in 1 transaction, even though both transports are implemented with smtp(8) and the nexthop is the same? Thanks, -- Ben Rosengart Like all those possessing a library, Sendmail, Inc. Aurelian was aware that he was guilty of +1 718 431 3822 not knowing his in its entirety [...] -- Jorge Luis Borges NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
Re: complex policy -- how best to implement in Postfix?
Ben Rosengart: If, upstream, I separate the recipients into different transports, will this cause the upstream Postfix to split the envelope and send the mail in 1 transaction, even though both transports are implemented with smtp(8) and the nexthop is the same? Each transport in a (transport, nexthop, recipient) triple has its own per-nexthop message delivery request queues, and each message delivery request has its own mail delivery transaction. However, due to connection caching, multiple transactions from different transports(!) may share an SMTP session. Wietse
message-id discarded on send?
If I submit a message with the following message-id to the postfix sendmail interface using */usr/sbin/sendmail -r...@here.com -t -oi -oem* Message-Id: *58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com* The Postfix sendmail interface receives the message with the specified message-id: Mar 9 03:49:05 howsmy postfix/cleanup[16499]: 3E8C66C12E7: message-id=* 58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com* When the message arrives, it appears not to have a message-id at all, and the receiver generates one. Message-Id: *4f597db2.e7b9ec0a.6395.816dsmtpin_ad...@mx.google.com* If I don't submit a message-id to postfix sendmail, the message-id generated by postfix arrives in the receiving SMTP server correctly as sent. If I try to specify the message-id, apparently nothing gets sent for a message-id field by postfix. What am I missing?
Re: message-id discarded on send?
On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: If I submit a message with the following message-id to the postfix sendmail interface using */usr/sbin/sendmail -r...@here.com mailto:r...@here.com -t -oi -oem* Message-Id: *58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com mailto:58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com* ... What am I missing? (no HTML next time. Thanks.) Your supplied message id is not valid, missing ... Message-ID: 58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com -- Noel Jones
Re: message-id discarded on send?
Awesome! That was it. I assumed my PERL library was doing the for me. I'm hearing the when you assume speech coming on. Thank you!! On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote: On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: If I submit a message with the following message-id to the postfix sendmail interface using */usr/sbin/sendmail -r...@here.com mailto:r...@here.com -t -oi -oem* Message-Id: *58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com mailto:58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com* ... What am I missing? (no HTML next time. Thanks.) Your supplied message id is not valid, missing ... Message-ID: 58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com -- Noel Jones
