* Stan Hoeppner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I highly recommend you sub to spam-l and post your question there also.
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/spam-l.html
FWIW, here's my dnsbl config:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
* James Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Apologies if this has been asked before.
I would like to log the message headers of email passing through postfix
so I can review them.
What is the recommended way to do this and will it have an effect on
performance? our mail server does not
Hi.
I tried to upgrade from a perfectly running postfix system
(2.5.1 + SASL1) to 2.5.4, and got an strange error.
I compiled 2.5.1 (tar.gz from postfix's website) 3 months ago with:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -lsasl
make
make install
(answered the install questions and installed
I have configured the smtpd_sender_restrictions =
reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch
Still without authentication it is able to
accept mailswhat is wrong in my configuration i have provided the
result of
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Wietse Venema wrote:
Matthias Andree:
If Postfix (or qmail[1], or whatever application) claims to support a
particular operating system (Linux, Solaris - rather than POSIX), then
it has to make proper assumptions to work in that possibly different
environment that
Santiago Romero wrote:
Hi.
I tried to upgrade from a perfectly running postfix system
(2.5.1 + SASL1) to 2.5.4, and got an strange error.
I compiled 2.5.1 (tar.gz from postfix's website) 3 months ago with:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -lsasl
make
make install
(answered the install
* mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
R Pradeepa wrote:
I have configured the smtpd_sender_restrictions =
reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch
you only need one. The most restrictive is reject_sender_login_mismatch
(it
I'm trying to make that working with lists.soez.be
Now i have this :
$mydestination = , lists.$mydomain
In mailman i have set lists.soez.be instead soez.be
I have restart postfix and now i have this error :
Aug 20 11:13:20 soez postfix/pipe[3296]: 311ECAE7A0: to=, relay=maildrop,
CCARGS='-DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
-DUSE_CYRUS_SASL'
When Dovecot authentication was introduced the arguments were changed.
Now you have to use -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL explicitely in order to compile
support for Cyrus sasl in.
It does not compile this way:
(...)
gcc -Wmissing-prototypes -Wformat
At the moment I am scratching my head. Something is apparently
different in the sasl implementation. I assume that you compile both
versions in the same environment?
Yes. Same machine:
truth:~/sources/postfix# ls -l
total 6188
drwxr-xr-x 16 postfix postfix 4096 ago 20 10:03
Santiago Romero wrote:
I compile 2.5.1 with:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -lsasl
make
And SASL works. The same make sentences with 2.5.4 compiles and
after the
make upgrade it gives the sasl error in the logs.
And compiled postfconf says:
truth:~/sources/postfix/postfix-2.5.4#
Santiago Romero wrote:
Santiago Romero wrote:
I compile 2.5.1 with:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -lsasl
make
And SASL works. The same make sentences with 2.5.4 compiles and
after the
make upgrade it gives the sasl error in the logs.
And compiled postfconf says:
I get the following in my log...:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/smtpd[2774]: connect from pat.havleik.no[10.1.1.4]
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/smtpd[2774]: 88AC71FA25F:
client=pat.havleik.no[10.1.1.4]
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/cleanup[2789]: 88AC71FA25F: message-id=[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Aug 20
Are you absolutely sure that you need SASL1 and not SASL2? Please
check what versions of sasl.h are installed on your system. It could
be that an incompatible version is used during compilation.
Yes, I need it. I don't have available SASL2 and when I tried to
download and compile sasl2 in
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
relay=dovecot, delay=0.09, delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced
(mail forwarding loop for [EMAIL PROTECTED])
You are sending mail with
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
into the pipe
Thanks mouss. :)
Use hash file as replacement now.
Thanks Wietse,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Wietse Venema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can verify if the installed software matches the RPM package.
# rpm -qa 'postfix*'
rpm -qa 'postfix*'
postfix-2.3.3-2.el5.centos.mysql_pgsql
postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2
# rpm --verify name-of-package...
Santiago Romero:
Santiago Romero wrote:
Solved! I noticed that the undefined symbols were correctly defined in
libsasl1, so I thought that the problem was the library not being linked
in. So:
I changed:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL -lsasl
make
That is
Hi People,
I am new in the list and would like to share an idea (I know this is way
off) I have a serious problem and has researched in several places and
found no answer. The problem is the following, I move an e-mail to test
for the user and sends the same e-mail from tmda asking for
Num ber wrote:
I'm trying to make that working with lists.soez.be
Now i have this :
$mydestination = , lists.$mydomain
In mailman i have set lists.soez.be instead soez.be
I have restart postfix and now i have this error :
Aug 20 11:13:20 soez postfix/pipe[3296]: 311ECAE7A0: to=,
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL -lsasl
make
That is not the correct syntax. See the INSTALL file.
What's wrong? The -lsasl statement?
In the INSTALL file I see you use single quotation marks instead of
double. Besides of that, what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks.
Santiago Romero:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL -lsasl
make
That is not the correct syntax. See the INSTALL file.
What's wrong? The -lsasl statement?
See the INSTALL file. Also on-line as http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html
See also the
Thanks for the pruning tips Ralf. I figured some of those were dead,
just hadn't bothered to do any verification recently.
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Stan Hoeppner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I highly recommend you sub to spam-l and post your question there also.
* Stan Hoeppner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks for the pruning tips Ralf. I figured some of those were dead,
just hadn't bothered to do any verification recently.
There COULD be something in the logs. It can be dangerous to leave
those old entries in, since the DNS servers could return 127.0.0.1
So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday- These
numbers don't seem to add up.
My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking
it?
postconf -d | grep mail_version
mail_version = 2.4.5
and also
rpm -qa | grep postfix
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
The error from the server for an empty subject is:
Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected
Can I change it to say empty subject rejected?
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix - n n
James:
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
The error from the server for an empty subject is:
Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected
Can I change it to say empty subject rejected?
Yes. The REJECT action allows you to specify text.
Wietse
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix -
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix -
James wrote:
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
normal people do send mail without a subject, and I didn't see much
spam without a subject. so I don't think this is an effective anti-spam
measure.
if you really hate empty subjects, you may want to do the check in
On Wed, August 20, 2008 11:41 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
James:
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
The error from the server for an empty subject is:
Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected
Can I change it to say empty subject rejected?
Yes. The REJECT action
Hi,
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
in the log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504
doorway3: Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL PROTECTED] proto=SMTP
helo=doorway3
* John Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
in the log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 doorway3:
Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL
On 8/20/2008, John Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
bmmail.cwf.org returns a valid result from a dns check. What am I
missing here?
This: helo=doorway3
helo hostnames should be FQDN's...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, John Baker wrote:
Hi,
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this in the
log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 doorway3: Helo
command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname; from=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to=[EMAIL
John Baker wrote:
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
in the log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 doorway3:
Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL PROTECTED] proto=SMTP
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:30, LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=[EMAIL
PROTECTED], relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail forwarding loop for
[EMAIL
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail forwarding
Bj?rn T Johansen:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=[EMAIL
PROTECTED], relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail
Hello,
Thanks for your response. According to http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html the
filter would override my content_filter setting in main.cf, which I am
currently using with amavisd-new:
FILTER transport:destination
After the message is queued, send the entire mes-
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your response. According to http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html the
filter would override my content_filter setting in main.cf, which I am
currently using with amavisd-new:
FILTER transport:destination
After the message is
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by top post all I did was hit reply
in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the
problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an access table type
and not a CIDR table type:
check_recipient_mx_access
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by top post all I did was hit reply in
hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the problem is that
check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an access table type and not a CIDR table type:
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by top post all I did was hit
reply in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work.
I think the problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an
access table type and not a CIDR table type:
Top-posting is considered
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by top post all I did was hit
reply in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I
think the problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an access
table type and not a CIDR table
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by top post all I did was hit reply in
hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the problem is that
check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an access table type and not a CIDR table type:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=[EMAIL
PROTECTED],
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
An access formatted table does not care which type as long as it returns
values that are expected.
Any supported table type is valid for access tables.
man 5 cidr_table for details as what is expected on the left hand side.
access(5) values are expected on the
-
You used a space in the command line. Don't do that.
OK, I replaced the space with a comma.
The above line must not have any spaces in it. Replace the
space between ...mx_access and cidr:... with a , comma,
just like in the example you were given before.
Now it is not
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
-
You used a space in the command line. Don't do that.
OK, I replaced the space with a comma.
The above line must not have any spaces in it. Replace the
space between ...mx_access and cidr:... with a , comma,
just like in the example you were given before.
This only affects mail when it enters postfix (or more
specifically, when it leaves the content_filter). Mail
already in the queue will not be affected. Mail that bypasses
the content_filter will not be affected.
Why is to= logged above? There must be a recipient address
to look
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
This only affects mail when it enters postfix (or more
specifically, when it leaves the content_filter). Mail
already in the queue will not be affected. Mail that bypasses
the content_filter will not be affected.
Why is to= logged above? There must be a
A handful of my email users are getting an error message from external
servers mailing to our servers. This error occurs when you change the letter
case in the email address. Example, if you send from Yahoo! to my server
using the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] the email will go through, but if you
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol included a
line like:
trusted_client=[yes/no]
where the value would be set to yes if and only if
Tait Grove:
A handful of my email users are getting an error message from external
servers mailing to our servers. This error occurs when you change the letter
case in the email address. Example, if you send from Yahoo! to my server
using the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] the email will go
Ronald F. Guilmette:
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol included a
line like:
trusted_client=[yes/no]
where the value would
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol
Ronald F. Guilmette:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:12:02 Dave wrote:
Hi,
Do you have any notes on this setup? I'd like to get pointed on the right
path.
Thanks.
Dave.
http://www.postfix.org/faq.html#fax
For reference here are my files:
master.cf
fax unix - n n - 1 pipe
Has anyone else here found incompatibilities between these two?
My TLS implementation works fine sending from KDE Kmail, but I can't use
Outlook Express' secure option.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-postfix-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Tait Grove
Cc: 'Postfix users'
Subject: Re: address rejected: unverified address: Address verification in
progress
Tait
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
you get a bounce back message stating
?address
rejected: unverified address: Address verification in progress?. What
causes
this error in these cases?
Looks like you have 'sender address verification' enabled.
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html
I'm not sure many
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 20:01, Michael wrote:
Has anyone else here found incompatibilities between these two?
My TLS implementation works fine sending from KDE Kmail, but I can't use
Outlook Express' secure option.
Depending on the version of OE involved (I believe the current version
In this scenario you're better off trying to help others clean up their
networks than to try to block or filter based on the content. As you
stated, they are the Gorillas of mail and you can't really block them.
So, work with them. Believe it or not, these records are published
because
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:32PM +1000, James Robertson wrote:
Recently we noticed an increase in junk and discovered that it's coming
from Hotmail (and to a lesser extent Yahoo).
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.144 required=5.31 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599,
...
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.728
68 matches
Mail list logo
