Hey all,
First post, if it makes it off the server...
Had a problem where I couldnt send nor receive mail, it happened all of a
sudden for me after I moved into my fathers house. I thought it could be a dsl
problem, as I came from cable. It happened to nbe first that att.com was
blocking my ou
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/1/2009 11:47 AM:
> My understanding of client and sender are these:
> Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
In the context of Postfix client restrictions, the _client_ is the
remote SMTP server that is sending email to your Postfix server. It i
Brian Evans - Postfix List put forth on 10/1/2009 3:03 PM:
> Kevin Gagel wrote:
>> Now I get these errors:
>> Oct 1 12:54:59 gateway postfix/smtpd[14635]: warning: connect to
>> 127.0.0.1:12524: Connection refused
>> Oct 1 12:54:59 gateway postfix/smtpd[14635]: warning: problem talking
>> to serv
Ricky Tompu Breaky put forth on 10/1/2009 2:54 PM:
> Let me dip my concentration in the documentation and information I get
> from this mailing list.
Dip into one or more of these as well:
http://www.fredshack.com/docs/postfix.html
http://www.amazon.com/Postfix-Patrick-Ben-Koetter/dp/3898645185/
mouss,
as you said , if I use content_filter=3Dfilter:localhost:
and my filter is able to reinject the message in postfix queue,
Postfix will check inbound and outbound messages, right?
Thanks!!!
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, mouss wrote:
> Darvin Denmian wrote:
>> Ralf,
>>
>> I'm testing th
mouss,
as you said , if I use content_filter=filter:localhost:
and my filter is able to reinject the message in postfix queue,
Postfix will check inbound and outbound messages, right?
Thanks!!!
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, mouss wrote:
> Darvin Denmian wrote:
>> Ralf,
>>
>> I'm testing th
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Hagen Fürstenau :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using dovecot for SASL authentication:
>>
>> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> permit_mynetworks
>> permit_sasl_authenticated
>> reject_unauth_destination
>> smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
>> smtpd
Darvin Denmian wrote:
> Ralf,
>
> I'm testing this using:
>
> master.cf :
>
> # Inbound
>
> smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -v
>-o content_filter=filter:dummy
>
> filterunix - n n - 10 pipe
> flags=Rq user=filter null_send
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:46:51PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Then we agree. A system that computes SHA1 without secret key
> > provides no detection of after-the-fact changes.
>
> Except that the SHA-1 signature is just 20 bytes covering the entire
> tree, and there are
Robert Lopez wrote:
> My understanding of client and sender are these:
> Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
No. the client is the IP node. so it's either the IP of the reverse DNS
of the host that is trying to send mail. regarding reverse dns, if it is
not "confirmed", t
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/1/2009 12:34 PM:
> The REAL mistake in your setup is that you forward SPAM into gmail.
> This causes gmail to treat your machine as a SPAMMER, and may affect
> legitimate mail that you do want to receive.
110% correct.
> You must NEVER bounce SPAM to the sender addr
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:35:02AM +0200, Jakob Lenfers wrote:
> I find the manpage not clear on that issue, perhaps it could be said
> more explicitly here...
> |file_name
> | The name of the lookup table source file when rebuilding
> a database.
http://www.postfix.org/
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 03:08:31PM +0200, Hagen F??rstenau wrote:
> I'm using dovecot for SASL authentication:
>
> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks
> permit_sasl_authenticated
> reject_unauth_destination
> smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
> sm
Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> read the: http://www.poor-attitude.org/postfix/basic.html
This page is horribly out of date and should not be referenced. (it's
about Postfix 1.x)
Ricky Tompu Breaky kirjoitti:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:25:35 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
RB>Yes, but this mailing-list has made so much further step for my
RB>understanding. Now it's my turn to work on it alone. The information
RB>I got is already enough. I th
Kevin Gagel wrote:
> OK, reconfigured to:
> main.cf
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject_non_fqdn_sender,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject_unknown_sender_domain,
> check_sender_mx_access cidr:/etc/postfix/wildcard_mx_records.cidr,
> permit_mynetworks,
> c
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:22:39 -0400
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Ricky Tompu Breaky
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:41:14 +0300
> > Eero Volotinen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > RB>sussy:/var/log # postfix -n
> >> > postfix: invalid option -- 'n'
> >> > postfix: fatal: usage:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:25:35 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
RB>Yes, but this mailing-list has made so much further step for my
RB>understanding. Now it's my turn to work on it alone. The information
RB>I got is already enough. I think now I can do far better to
R
OK, reconfigured to:
main.cf
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
check_sender_mx_access cidr:/etc/postfix/wildcard_mx_records.cidr,
permit_mynetworks,
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/white
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:46:51PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Then we agree. A system that computes SHA1 without secret key
> provides no detection of after-the-fact changes.
Except that the SHA-1 signature is just 20 bytes covering the entire
tree, and there are *many* trees (no single master
OK, thank you very much.
===
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:17:40 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 1-Oct-2009, at 12:42, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> >> RB>ps: What is 'rtfm'? What does that stand for?
> >
> > It means that you need to read the friendly manual on the long run.
>
> The 'f' does not stand for 'friendl
Euro,
Especially for you, I highly appreciate your help so (much) far.
Thank you thousands time.
Let me dip my concentration in the documentation and information I get
from this mailing list.
Again thank you...thank you...thank you...
===
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:42:02 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote
I don't how to say thank you.
I highly appreciate your help so (much) far.
Thank you thousands time.
Let me dip my concentration in the documentation and information I get
from this mailing list.
Again thank you...thank you...thank you...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:25:55 -0700
Seth Mattinen w
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:17 PM, LuKreme wrote:
Read The F-ing Manual
Fishing? I always thought it was "read the fine manual."
--
If this was a real .signature it would be more interesting.
Kevin Gagel:
> When I use the above settings I end up with no mail flowing and tons
> of error messages stating:
> Out: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error
Perhaps surprisingly, Postfix writes the details of the problem to
the mailog file, not to the SMTP client.
Wietse
Kevin Gagel wrote:
> I'm trying to setup before queue filtering using policyd-weight but
> can't get my configuration right. Could someone please point out what
> I've done wrong...
[snip]
> When I use the above settings I end up with no mail flowing and tons
> of error messages stating:
> Out: 451
I'm trying to setup before queue filtering using policyd-weight but
can't get my configuration right. Could someone please point out what
I've done wrong...
My policyd-weight.conf contains only this:
$TCP_PORT= 12524;
My main.cf contains the following relevant lines:
soft_bounce = yes
LuKreme kirjoitti:
On 1-Oct-2009, at 12:42, Eero Volotinen wrote:
RB>ps: What is 'rtfm'? What does that stand for?
It means that you need to read the friendly manual on the long run.
The 'f' does not stand for 'friendly'.
Read The F-ing Manual
Well, there are many variations:
http://en.w
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Ricky Tompu Breaky wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:41:14 +0300
> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>>
>> > RB>sussy:/var/log # postfix -n
>> > postfix: invalid option -- 'n'
>> > postfix: fatal: usage: postfix [-c config_dir] [-Dv] command
>> > sussy:/var/log #
>>
>> postco
On 1-Oct-2009, at 12:42, Eero Volotinen wrote:
RB>ps: What is 'rtfm'? What does that stand for?
It means that you need to read the friendly manual on the long run.
The 'f' does not stand for 'friendly'.
Read The F-ing Manual
--
"I know she's in there," said Verence, holding his crown in hi
On Thursday 01 October 2009 12:35:02 URCentral @ Gmail wrote:
> Ahh, that makes sense. So given the above example;
>
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/chk_sender_local
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/chk_sender_access
>
> would work?
But as I posted in another thread on the s
RB>ps: What is 'rtfm'? What does that stand for?
It means that you need to read the friendly manual on the long run.
--
Eero
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List:
>
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
>>>
>>>
Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
keep
Brian Evans - Postfix List:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
> >
> >> Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
> >> official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
> >> keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Check
On Thursday 01 October 2009 11:47:47 Robert Lopez wrote:
> My understanding of client and sender are these:
> Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
In the context of check_client_access it means the IP address and/or
forward-confirmed reverse DNS name of the client applicat
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
> Robert Lopez wrote:
>> check_client_access=hash:/etc/postfix/access
>> smtpd_client_restrictions =
>> permit_mynetworks
>> hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist
>>
> This is depreciated syntax equivalent to "check_client_acces
URCentral @ Gmail wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Correcting myself; there are two hash databases specified on the live
>>> server, like this;
>>>
>>> check_sender_access
>>> hash:/etc/postfix/chk_sender_local
>>>
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
>> Correcting myself; there are two hash databases specified on the live
>> server, like this;
>>
>> check_sender_access
>> hash:/etc/postfix/chk_sender_local
>> hash:/etc/postfix/chk_sender_
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:27 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
> > Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
> > official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
> > keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Checking the
Jose Maria Sanchez de Ocana:
> OK, so now here is my problem: When my postfix receives a SPAM message
> bound for one of my accounts, this email is forwarded to gmail's SMTP
> server directly. But then gmail's SPAM filter rejects this message and
> here starts my problem. AFAIK what postfix should
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
>
>> Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
>> official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
>> keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Checking the release
>> notes file or the ch
Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
> Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
> official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
> keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Checking the release
> notes file or the change log file is not very practi
URCentral @ Gmail wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, URCentral @ Gmail wrote:
>
>> Which works; if 'postmas...@configcast.com' is used as a sender, it
>> rejects the rest of the SMTP session, but if used as a recipient, it's
>> fine, as expected. If I move 'check_sender_access' to the nex
Ricky Tompu Breaky wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:15:52 +0300
> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>> Ricky Tompu Breaky kirjoitti:
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:51 +0300
>>> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
Well, default config on suse? is really messy, maybe you can take
basic config from
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:39:12PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Jay G. Scott :
> > okay, maybe i'm catching on.
> >
> > i set up the /etc/sasldb2 method of authentication.
> > that's doing so far what i want.
> >
> > 1. okay, i guess /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd is only for clien
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, URCentral @ Gmail wrote:
>>> Is this by design, working as intended? Or am I missing something somewhere?
>>
>> Where's the main.cf snippet?
>
> Guess I did miss something somewhere. This is how it looks like now;
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> permit_myn
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:15:52 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
> Ricky Tompu Breaky kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:51 +0300
> > Eero Volotinen wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> Well, default config on suse? is really messy, maybe you can take
> >> basic config from postfix and start with it?
> >>
Ricky Tompu Breaky kirjoitti:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:51 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
...
Well, default config on suse? is really messy, maybe you can take
basic config from postfix and start with it?
RB>Yes, you're right Eero It's from OpenSuSE11.1 MMM... Do you
RB>have the sa
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:51 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
...
>
> Well, default config on suse? is really messy, maybe you can take
> basic config from postfix and start with it?
>
RB>Yes, you're right Eero It's from OpenSuSE11.1 MMM... Do you
RB>have the sample of the 'basic config
Robert Lopez wrote:
> My understanding of client and sender are these:
> Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
> Sender: The from or sender "name" in the header that shows who (is
> claimed to have) sent the email.
>
>
Indeed.
> The context of the use that has me concern
sussy:~ # postconf -n
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
biff = no
body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/body_checks
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
daemon_
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:41:14 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> > RB>sussy:/var/log # postfix -n
> > postfix: invalid option -- 'n'
> > postfix: fatal: usage: postfix [-c config_dir] [-Dv] command
> > sussy:/var/log #
>
> postconf -n
RB>Wupps... Shame on me. Sorry.
sussy:~ # postconf -n
alias_ma
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:12:15 -0500
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ricky Tompu Breaky put forth on 9/30/2009 5:10 PM:
>
> > Sending failed:
> > Your SMTP server does not support The server responded: "5.7.8
> > Error: authentication failed: generic failure". Choose a different
> > authentication method.
Dan Schaefer wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Dan Schaefer:
Dan Schaefer wrote:
Email address: mail...@example.com
Aliases: ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
What I want to accomplish is any email being sent to
mail...@example.com to be put into the mail...@example
My understanding of client and sender are these:
Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
Sender: The from or sender "name" in the header that shows who (is
claimed to have) sent the email.
The context of the use that has me concerned are these:
smtpd_client_restrictions and s
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
>> Is this by design, working as intended? Or am I missing something somewhere?
>
> Where's the main.cf snippet?
Guess I did miss something somewhere. This is how it looks like now;
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
RB>sussy:/var/log # postfix -n
postfix: invalid option -- 'n'
postfix: fatal: usage: postfix [-c config_dir] [-Dv] command
sussy:/var/log #
postconf -n
Oct 1 23:02:05 sussy postfix/scache[1715]: statistics: start interval
Oct 1 22:58:45 Oct 1 23:02:05 sussy postfix/scache[1715]: statist
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:57:00 +0300
Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>
> > I'm stucked again. Please help me. Could you tell me where my
> > mistake, please?
>
> please, do not obfuscate hostnames, also postfix -n is needed and
> logfiles from postfix server.
RB>sussy:/var/log # postfix -n
postfix: in
Ralf,
I'm testing this using:
master.cf :
# Inbound
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -v
-o content_filter=filter:dummy
filterunix - n n - 10 pipe
flags=Rq user=filter null_sender=
argv=/usr/bin/filter.sh -f ${sender} --
* Darvin Denmian :
> Hello,
>
> Currently I'm using "content_filter" to filter inbound messages.
How?
> Now I need to know if is possible to do something like content_filter
> for outbound messages.
Every outbound message was inbound once, no?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteil
Now if for whatever reason dovecot is not running, smtpd will also
refuse to work, complaining "fatal: no SASL authentication mechanisms".
Indeed!
I would much prefer it to fall back to "smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = no" in
that case, so that mail for local recipients can still be received. Is
th
Peter Macko kirjoitti:
Hi all,
could you give me any clue how to accomplish following:
1. I need to configure postfix to allow some users only receive emails.
They can download received emails by outlook or other client from
postfix server,
but they are prohibited to send one.
2. The second
Hi all,
I need to add another filter to my existing anti-virus one.
I've allready set an advanced content filter like the example in the
Postfix After-Queue Content tutorial.
Postfix Queue --> Port 10025 (Anti-Virus+AntiSpam)--> that reinject mails
through the 10026 port to postfix --> delive
Hello,
Currently I'm using "content_filter" to filter inbound messages.
Now I need to know if is possible to do something like content_filter
for outbound messages.
Thanks.
* Hagen Fürstenau :
> Hi,
>
> I'm using dovecot for SASL authentication:
>
> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks
> permit_sasl_authenticated
> reject_unauth_destination
> smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
> smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth-client
>
Hi,
I'm using dovecot for SASL authentication:
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
permit_sasl_authenticated
reject_unauth_destination
smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth-client
Now if for whatever reason dovecot is not r
My expertise with email servers & protocols is very limited. That
being said, here is a problem I've been dealing with for a few hours
now without finding a suitable solution:
I run a box in Amazon's EC2, and I use postfix. In order to avoid
being marked as a SPAM source because of EC2's IPs being
Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Checking the release
notes file or the change log file is not very practical.
Regards,
Miguel
si
Wietse Venema wrote:
Dan Schaefer:
Dan Schaefer wrote:
Email address: mail...@example.com
Aliases: ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
What I want to accomplish is any email being sent to
mail...@example.com to be put into the mail...@example.com's Inbox and
1 c
Dan Schaefer:
> Dan Schaefer wrote:
> > Email address: mail...@example.com
> > Aliases: ali...@example.com
> > ali...@example.com
> > ali...@example.com
> >
> > What I want to accomplish is any email being sent to
> > mail...@example.com to be put into the mail...@example.com's Inbox and
> > 1 c
Hi all,
could you give me any clue how to accomplish following:
1. I need to configure postfix to allow some users only receive emails.
They can download received emails by outlook or other client from postfix
server,
but they are prohibited to send one.
2. The second group of users sh
Dan Schaefer wrote:
Email address: mail...@example.com
Aliases: ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
ali...@example.com
What I want to accomplish is any email being sent to
mail...@example.com to be put into the mail...@example.com's Inbox and
1 copy to be sent to the 3 aliases. I'm using Po
* URCentral Support (GMail) :
> Hello list,
>
> This might be working as intended, but since it seemed a tad odd and I
> couldn't find any conclusive documentation that explained it, I
> figured I'd work up the courage and ask. I moved 'check_sender_access'
> from the 'smtpd_sender_restrictions' t
Hello list,
This might be working as intended, but since it seemed a tad odd and I
couldn't find any conclusive documentation that explained it, I
figured I'd work up the courage and ask. I moved 'check_sender_access'
from the 'smtpd_sender_restrictions' to the
'smtpd_recipient_restrictions' stage
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:26:30PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>>> ldap:/some/file.cf
Thanks, that solved it. *shame*
>> What happens if you don't use it properly? Why does it fall back to using
>> localhost then?
> The table name is assumed to refer to a par
75 matches
Mail list logo
