Re: A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

I read the file "postfix.txt" in shared docs of DSPAM, but I can't make DSPAM insert any headers into mails if I only specify it as a content filter under "smtp" in "master.cf", and not under "smtps". Probably my configuration files (with stripped comments) will explain everything better: dspam.co

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

On 28. jan. 2015 23.33.45 lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: > block spam with Spamassassin > block viruses with ClamAV > greylist mail from freemail domains with one policy > greylist mail from certain countries with another policy Don't do this. Greylisting should not be used to punish real MTAs. Use

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Zitat von srach : I have read the documents for some different Greylisting opportunities for Postfix This built into Postfix http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#greylist and popular ones http://wiki.policyd.org http://postgrey.schweikert.ch I am not finding a modern comparison

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Am 28.01.2015 um 21:00 schrieb srach: 28. Jan 2015 19:19 by li...@rhsoft.net : postscreen_dnsbl_sites = http://b.barracudacentral.org=127.0.0.2*7 http://dnsbl.inps.de=127.0.0.2*7 I see from the example you give that these are I think all DNSBL that are domain

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Am 28.01.2015 um 20:46 schrieb srach: 28. Jan 2015 19:28 by li...@rhsoft.net : maybe you need some numbers why the below config is good and greylisting not needed peak day 2015/01 * postscreen rejects: 9 * spamassassin: 120 * clamav: 15

Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

28. Jan 2015 19:19 by li...@rhsoft.net: postscreen_dnsbl_sites = > > http://b.barracudacentral.org=127.0.0.2*7 > > http://dnsbl.inps.de=127.0.0.2*7 > I see from the example you give that these are I think all DNSBL that are domain name searching only In the notes I am keeping from read

Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

28. Jan 2015 19:28 by li...@rhsoft.net: > maybe you need some numbers why the below config is good and greylisting > not needed > > peak day 2015/01 > > * postscreen rejects: 9 > * spamassassin: 120 > * clamav: 15 > * delivered mail: 850 > > that are numbers for a single day > Okay that

Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

28. Jan 2015 19:19 by li...@rhsoft.net: honestly with postscreen *without deep protocol tests) and rbl-scoring (DSNBL as well as DNSWL) there is no point for greylisting at all > > postscreen_dnsbl_ttl = 5m > postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 8 > postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce > postscreen_gree

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

maybe you need some numbers why the below config is good and greylisting not needed peak day 2015/01 * postscreen rejects: 9 * spamassassin: 120 * clamav: 15 * delivered mail: 850 that are numbers for a single day Am 28.01.2015 um 20:19 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net: Am 28.01.2015 um 20:08

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Am 28.01.2015 um 20:21 schrieb srach: 28. Jan 2015 19:17 by wie...@porcupine.org : There are good reasons to NOT integrate, and instead use the least-expensive solution before the most-expensive solution. postscreen implements a least-expensive solution

Re: Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

28. Jan 2015 19:17 by wie...@porcupine.org: > There are good reasons to NOT integrate, and instead use the > least-expensive solution before the most-expensive solution. > > postscreen implements a least-expensive solution that eliminates > most of the spambots without even allowing them to talk

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Am 28.01.2015 um 20:08 schrieb srach: 28. Jan 2015 18:43 by li...@rhsoft.net : besides that greylisting is harmful in case of large sending clusters not returning with the same IP while re-try a deferred message postscreen can do this more or less as side ef

Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

srach: > And if there will be more checking with the Spamassassin and Clamav too I > think there is good value in all in one policy integration instead of some in > Postscreen too. There are good reasons to NOT integrate, and instead use the least-expensive solution before the most-expensive sol

Re: Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

28. Jan 2015 18:43 by li...@rhsoft.net: > besides that greylisting is harmful in case of large sending clusters not > returning with the same IP while re-try a deferred message postscreen can > do this more or less as side effect with deep protool tests > Yes I see that opportunity in Po

Re: A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

"...on the dspam list are for sure more people using dspam as here" - probably correct. That's why I started conversation with a question: "Did anyone had this type of misconfiguration before?" If nobody on this list ever used DSPAM, then there's no point to bother list users with questions about P

Re: A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

Am 28.01.2015 um 19:44 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов: Thanks for your reply. 1. "...this is the wrong list" - disagree: if the result comes from interaction of two pieces of software (in this case, Postfix and DSPAM), either list could be considered relevant. Following this idea, I've emailed

Re: A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

Thanks for your reply. 1. "...this is the wrong list" - disagree: if the result comes from interaction of two pieces of software (in this case, Postfix and DSPAM), either list could be considered relevant. Following this idea, I've emailed my question to DSPAM mailing list too. 2. "...dspam is ab

Re: Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

Am 28.01.2015 um 19:38 schrieb srach: I have read the documents for some different Greylisting opportunities for Postfix This built into Postfix http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#greylist and popular ones http://wiki.policyd.org http://postgrey.schweikert.ch I am not finding a

Using greylisting and other policies all in one. Use built in Postifx policy functions or other popular ones?

I have read the documents for some different Greylisting opportunities for Postfix This built into Postfix http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#greylist and popular ones http://wiki.policyd.org http://postgrey.schweikert.ch I am not finding a modern comparison of these and a decisi

Re: A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

Am 28.01.2015 um 19:04 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов: Trying to add DSPAM to my Postfix - Dovecot setup, I came across an interesting situation, maybe someone here had a similar problem before? Here's what happens: Only local mail (i.e. letters sent from one mailbox to another mailbox on my s

A strange problem when adding DSPAM to Postfix

Hello! Trying to add DSPAM to my Postfix - Dovecot setup, I came across an interesting situation, maybe someone here had a similar problem before? Here's what happens: Only local mail (i.e. letters sent from one mailbox to another mailbox on my server) is passed through DSPAM. Emails from other s

Re: warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

deoren: > Jan 27 16:27:56 screech postfix/cleanup[1140]: warning: BFCD1213F8: > sender_canonical_maps map lookup problem for fail2ban-l...@example.com The cleanup server has a problem. > Jan 27 16:27:56 screech postfix/pickup[1134]: warning: > maildrop/D9D4C21208: error writing BFCD1213F8: queu

Re: warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

Am 28.01.2015 um 17:10 schrieb deoren: On 2015-01-28 08:33, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: Am 28.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb deoren: I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't find a post which matched my specific situation. I see those warnings in the logs when the system g

Re: warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

On 2015-01-28 08:33, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: Am 28.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb deoren: I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't find a post which matched my specific situation. I see those warnings in the logs when the system goes down for a reboot. Is the mail lost?

Re: Re-inject mail after transport

On 1/28/2015 8:39 AM, List wrote: > I would like to transport messages for a specific address to a > python application to do a few things then push the message back to > postfix for delivery to their maildir. I am wondering what is the > best way to put that message back into postfix without it l

Re: Glibc Vulnerability -- CVE-2015-0235

Am 28.01.2015 um 15:38 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 28. jan. 2015 14.57.27 "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote: all serious distributions have a newer glibc or offer updates Jan 28 05:41:58 Updated: glibc-common-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64 Jan 28 05:42:03 Updated: glibc-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64 what version

Re: Re-inject mail after transport

List: > I would like to transport messages for a specific address to a python > application to do a few things then push the message back to postfix for > delivery to their maildir. I am wondering what is the best way to put > that message back into postfix without it looping back through the

Re: warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

deoren: > Hi, > > I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't > find a post which matched my specific situation. > > I see those warnings in the logs when the system goes down for a reboot. What warnings? You failed to include the program name. As the system shuts dow

Re-inject mail after transport

I would like to transport messages for a specific address to a python application to do a few things then push the message back to postfix for delivery to their maildir. I am wondering what is the best way to put that message back into postfix without it looping back through the transport?

Re: Glibc Vulnerability -- CVE-2015-0235

On 28. jan. 2015 14.57.27 "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote: all serious distributions have a newer glibc or offer updates Jan 28 05:41:58 Updated: glibc-common-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64 Jan 28 05:42:03 Updated: glibc-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64 what version of glibc is that ?, did you verify it solves all

local lmtp file lookup for parameter use. Okay format for use in both of the main.cf and master.cf configuration?

I am next working on using local database file lookups for Postfix configuration use. I see how in the document http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html to use MySQL and LDAP for some things.  With some examples and tests I am sucessful. I see too the example for hash: or btree: or lmdb:.

Re: warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

Am 28.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb deoren: I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't find a post which matched my specific situation. I see those warnings in the logs when the system goes down for a reboot. Is the mail lost? Should I be using a different approach when re

warning: maildrop/33CAC20FBB: error writing BFF19213F8: queue file write error

Hi, I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't find a post which matched my specific situation. I see those warnings in the logs when the system goes down for a reboot. Is the mail lost? Should I be using a different approach when rebooting a server running Postfix

Re: Glibc Vulnerability -- CVE-2015-0235

Am 28.01.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 28. jan. 2015 06.50.31 Peter wrote: Honestly, I don't know if postfix uses that function or not, but if postfix isn't vulnerable then you almost certainly have some other program on your box that is. I would recommend that you update glibc wit

Re: XFORWARD with UNIX socket content filter

* Wietse Venema 2015.01.28 13:20: > > Wietse Oops. Valid point. Just found out that this doesn't seem to be implemented: $ socat - UNIX-CONNECT:/var/spool/postfix/public/dspam-lmtp 220 DSPAM LMTP 3.10.1 Ready lhlo localhost 250-localhost.localdomain 250-PIPELINING 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODE

Re: XFORWARD with UNIX socket content filter

Thomas Leuxner: > While everything works fine, I was unable to emulate xforward like I used to. Does the SMTP server announce XFORWARD in the EHLO response? Does the client send XFORWARD? Wietse

Re: Glibc Vulnerability -- CVE-2015-0235

Vijay Rajah: > Hello, > > I'm sure most of you are aware of the latest Glibc vulnerability. (FYI: > http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/01/27/9) > > I'm not sure If postfix is vulnerable. I see from that posting that, > exim under certain configurations, is vulnerable. > > I think

XFORWARD with UNIX socket content filter

I recently integrated DSPAM into my setup. This introduced a change from SMTP-based inet relaying to LMTP delivery using UNIX sockets. Old: scan unix - - n - 16 smtp -o smtp_bind_address=127.0.0.1 -o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes -o disable_dns_lookups=ye