Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 02/12/2017 07:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a mail system was more work than any of my prior

Re: Best way to run Postfix on a single server for multiple domains

Dear Rob (I hope that is your name), Thank you for your views/suggestion. My replies are inline tagged with my name, as in [Nitin:] On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 8:53 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 01:55:26PM +0530, Nitin N wrote: > > Now, I have to migrate to a new

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

Am 12.02.2017 um 19:06 schrieb Wietse Venema: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. > After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of > December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a > mail system was more work than any of my prior

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:28:17 -0500 D'Arcy Cain wrote: > On 2017-02-12 01:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. > > Congratulations and thanks! Me too, as they say :-) A reasonably straightforward, secure, and

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 13 February 2017 9:16:18 AM AEDT, mar...@fredo.co.uk wrote: >Dear Wietse, > >In all the years I cannot think of any other software I have used that >has maintained such an >extraordinarily high standard of functionality, stability, security and >usability. >(I started hosting in 1994). >

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:26:55 + Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > host -t txt _dmarc.artifact-software.com > > "v=DMARC1; pct=100; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r" > > > > And as this mail is sent by cloud9, opendmarc does what it is > > supposed to do. > > Say no to

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

wie...@porcupine.org skrev den 2017-02-12 20:59: DKIM works just fine across multiple hops of forwarding as long as one does not modify the message in transit (someone said that DKIM is hop-by-hop; they don't understand what DKIM does). If anyone's DKIM verifier fails on this posting, let me

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

On 2017 Feb 12, 21:26, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > DO NOT publish DMARC policy. DO NOT check DMARC policy, except > perhaps as a small bump in a composite spam score. The "DO NOT publish DMARC policy" is a bit extreme, IMHO. I find it useful, and without any bad consequences, to publish a DMARC

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

Dear Wietse, In all the years I cannot think of any other software I have used that has maintained such an extraordinarily high standard of functionality, stability, security and usability. (I started hosting in 1994). Your work has been, and is, a key part of my humble Internet career. Many

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:10:05PM +0100, richard lucassen wrote: > host -t txt _dmarc.artifact-software.com > "v=DMARC1; pct=100; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r" > > And as this mail is sent by cloud9, opendmarc does what it is supposed > to do. Say no to DMARC. Don't make the mistake of

Re: similar email address to one account?

Maurizio Caloro: [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] > hello > i have this already done, with "Aliases", but here i don't have success! > > mauri...@caloro.ch exist all ready but i will that m...@caloro.ch are > available > from public, but here i become the message "User unknown in local >

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

sid-milter? dont use it, its still checking sender-id that is not spf

Re: similar email address to one account?

hello i have this already done, with "Aliases", but here i don't have success! mauri...@caloro.ch exist all ready but i will that m...@caloro.ch are available from public, but here i become the message "User unknown in local recipient table". # /etc/aliases maurizio:

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 01:06:42PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. It is good to see thanks from users who've been with you all for almost the entire time. By that standard, I came on board late, when Bennett Todd introduced me

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:01:05 +0100 richard lucassen wrote: It must be OpenDMARC: host -t txt artifact-software.com "v=spf1 mx -all" host -t txt _dmarc.artifact-software.com "v=DMARC1; pct=100; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r" And as this mail is sent by cloud9,

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote: > > I'm playing with a new setup and I'm mucking about with it quite a > > lot of course, but sometimes I get messages sent to the hold queue > > and I didn't postsuper them there. What could be the reason for >

Re: similar email address to one account?

On 2017-02-12 Maurizio Caloro wrote: > i will that following e-mail Adresses (public) goes to one recipent > address (local) > > n...@example.com = myname > shortn...@example.com = myname > > i need to open differents accounts?, or i configure this with the > Virtual maps? Virtual maps

Re: messages getting in the hold queue

richard lucassen: > Hello list, > > I'm playing with a new setup and I'm mucking about with it quite a lot > of course, but sometimes I get messages sent to the hold queue and > I didn't postsuper them there. What could be the reason for this? The > doc

messages getting in the hold queue

Hello list, I'm playing with a new setup and I'm mucking about with it quite a lot of course, but sometimes I get messages sent to the hold queue and I didn't postsuper them there. What could be the reason for this? The doc http://www.postfix.org/QSHAPE_README.html#hold_queue does not clarify

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 02/12/17 13:48, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 12.02.17 19:06, Wietse Venema wrote: > >> Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. > > Kudos, and thank you for freeing me (and consequently my customers) of > Exim and Sendmail. ;-) Postfix is one of the most useful

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

Josh Good: > Old-style forwarding is when the forwarding MTA forwards the message > re-using the original Return-Path in the SMTP envelope, instead of using > its own address in the Return-Path. Because if the forwarding MTA uses > its own address in the Return-Path while forwarding the email, SPF

similar email address to one account?

hello friends i will that following e-mail Adresses (public) goes to one recipent address (local) n...@example.com = myname shortn...@example.com = myname i need to open differents accounts?, or i configure this with the Virtual maps? me problem are that i don't understand this

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

Wietse Venema wrote: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. Wietse, don't remember the exact date but probably a couple of months after your first release I've migrated a company's mail servers to postfix. postfix was chosen after reading some of your comments

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 2017 Feb 12, 13:06, Wietse Venema wrote: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. > After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of > December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a > mail system was more work than any of my prior

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 2017 Feb 12, 18:32, Dominic Raferd wrote: > On 12 February 2017 at 12:54, Josh Good wrote: > > > Well, yes, SPF breaks old-style forwarding. This is well known and > > undisputed. > > > > Many old-style SMTP "customs" no longer apply, like open relays, etc. > > > >

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

Am 12.02.2017 um 19:06 schrieb Wietse Venema: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. > After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of > December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a > mail system was more work than any of my prior

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 12.02.17 19:06, Wietse Venema wrote: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. Kudos, and thank you for freeing me (and consequently my customers) of Exim and Sendmail. ;-) Postfix is one of the most useful software systems I have the pleasure of working with, and

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

A great contribution to the Internet. Your 20 years of fantastic support and sustained commitment has made Postix successful. Thanks Ron On 12/02/2017 1:12 PM, Dominic Raferd wrote: On 12 February 2017 at 18:06, Wietse Venema wrote: Last month it was 20 years ago that

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 12 February 2017 at 12:54, Josh Good wrote: > On 2017 Feb 12, 07:53, Dominic Raferd wrote: >> >> To go back to a point made by OP about SPF being 'good', it seems to me >> that SPF is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed - and frankly should >> be dropped. > >

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 2017-02-12 01:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. Congratulations and thanks! -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain System Administrator, Vex.Net http://www.Vex.Net/ IM:da...@vex.net VoIP: sip:da...@vex.net

Re: Postfix 20 years ago

On 12 February 2017 at 18:06, Wietse Venema wrote: > Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code... Amazing what a mighty oak has grown from such an acorn. Thanks to you for the original planting and to all those, including you, who have nurtured its

Postfix 20 years ago

Last month it was 20 years ago that I started writing Postfix code. After coming to IBM research in November 1996, I spent most of December and January making notes on paper. I knew that writing a mail system was more work than any of my prior projects. The oldest tarball, dated 19970220,

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

Josh Good wrote: > On 2017 Feb 12, 16:17, Michael Ströder wrote: >> Josh Good wrote: >>> On 2017 Feb 11, 19:18, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: So technically integrity is assured from server to server, but not between clients and server. >>> >>> That is correct. DKIM is for MTA-to-MTA

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 2017 Feb 12, 16:17, Michael Ströder wrote: > Josh Good wrote: > > On 2017 Feb 11, 19:18, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: > >> So technically integrity is assured from server to server, but not between > >> clients > >> and server. > > > > That is correct. DKIM is for MTA-to-MTA integrity. > >

Re: The "from" header looks like paypal but it is coming from somewhere else.

On 11/02/2017 10:38, /dev/rob0 wrote: This appears to be from Mailchimp, so reporting it as abuse is likely to yield some satisfactory results. Thanks to everyone for the advice. P.V.Anthony smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

Josh Good wrote: > On 2017 Feb 11, 19:18, li...@lazygranch.com wrote: >> So technically integrity is assured from server to server, but not between >> clients >> and server. > > That is correct. DKIM is for MTA-to-MTA integrity. There are no widely used MUA implementations making use of DKIM

Re: [postfix-users] Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 12.02.2017 08:39, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: > Maybe DKIM verification should ignore list tags in the subject > if the first attempt was unsuccesful. > I.e. I could imagine a smarter canonicalization. There can be no "interpretation" of what the signing party distributes. I deliberately use

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 2017 Feb 12, 08:14, John Allen wrote: > Josh Good - your DKIM signaturesare showing up as invalid. I don't see how that is possible, given that I currently do not do DKIM signing of my posts to this list. Perhaps did you mean to say that my posts to the list are getting a DMARC result of

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

Josh Good - your DKIM signaturesare showing up as invalid. On 2017-02-12 7:54 AM, Josh Good wrote: On 2017 Feb 12, 07:53, Dominic Raferd wrote: To go back to a point made by OP about SPF being 'good', it seems to me that SPF is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed - and frankly should be

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 2017 Feb 12, 07:53, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > To go back to a point made by OP about SPF being 'good', it seems to me > that SPF is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed - and frankly should > be dropped. Wow! Those are big words. > The fact that it works in 99.5% of situations just makes

Re: [postfix-users] Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 2017 Feb 12, 08:39, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: > > > Further, how does DKIM prove the message wasn't altered? To my knowledge, > > > SPF proves the message came from a qualified server and DKIM proves the > > > FQDN > > > is a match.  > > > > DKIM signs a hash of the canonicalized message

Re: Why no List-ID header in the postfix-users posts?

On 12.02.2017 03:13, Sebastian Nielsen wrote: > Theres no relay between me and postfix. And this is the report: > > Feedback-Type: auth-failure > Version: 1 > User-Agent: OpenDMARC-Filter/1.3.2 > Auth-Failure: dmarc > Authentication-Results: mx01.nausch.org; dmarc=fail header.from=sebbe.eu >