> On Oct 17, 2020, at 2:55 AM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
> Should I submit another patch? In addition to adding
> local_sender_login_maps, I have fixed what appeared to be a bug in
> the current postdrop and sendmail commands: root and $mail_owner were
> not automatically allowed to submit mail.
> On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:09 AM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
>> The practical limit to the deferred queue size is therefore ~2 days of
>> throughput, and depends heavily on the per-delivery latency. If
>> delivery failures are slow (tarpitting or otherwise slow destinations)
>> the impact is
On 16 Oct 2020, at 23:51, Joey J wrote:
Hello All,
I'm trying to figure out the workaround for when a domain sends an
email to
lets say 1...@abc.com and then that is supposed to forward to b...@xyz.com
but
b...@xyz.com postfix is rejecting the message:
(Yes, names and IP's have been changed
On 10/16/20 9:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The practical limit to the deferred queue size is therefore ~2 days of
> throughput, and depends heavily on the per-delivery latency. If
> delivery failures are slow (tarpitting or otherwise slow destinations)
> the impact is greater.
Can the
On 2020-10-16 21:16, Bill Cole wrote:
> Based on your config and descriptions, it smells like a compromised
> account being used to pump mail through your submission service. A full
> set of log lines for one of the messages should reveal that. The
> master.cf lines for smtpd and submission would
Should I submit another patch? In addition to adding
local_sender_login_maps, I have fixed what appeared to be a bug in
the current postdrop and sendmail commands: root and $mail_owner were
not automatically allowed to submit mail. Since this is inconsistent
with similar checks elsewhere, I
On 16 Oct 2020, at 18:20, Rich Wales wrote:
Hi. My mail server (memoryalpha.richw.org), running Postfix 3.3.0,
recently started attracting open relay spam. I thought I had done all
the appropriate things in Postfix to block open relay traffic, and I
hadn't seen any such traffic for a very
Hello All,
I'm trying to figure out the workaround for when a domain sends an email to
lets say 1...@abc.com and then that is supposed to forward to b...@xyz.com but
b...@xyz.com postfix is rejecting the message:
(Yes, names and IP's have been changed to protect the innocent)
Oct 16 23:16:12 mgw
On Oct 16, 2020, at 11:17 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
>
> No, Viktor, I have not deleted my logs. However, there is so much stuff
> in the Postfix log (/var/log/mail.log on my system) -- including both
> good e-mail messages and bad, overlapped every which-way, multiple
> Postfix processes, etc. --
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 02:37:04PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Unless there's a particularly good reason why you believe that OpenSMTPD
> > would do better than Postfix in bulk mail delivery performance, it is not
> > helpful to recommend it here.
>
> I misunderstood your previous message,
No, Viktor, I have not deleted my logs. However, there is so much stuff
in the Postfix log (/var/log/mail.log on my system) -- including both
good e-mail messages and bad, overlapped every which-way, multiple
Postfix processes, etc. -- that I don't think I can reasonably hope for
anyone to be
On Oct 16, 2020, at 10:28 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
>
> The next time I see this happen -- could be tomorrow, could be weeks
> from now, I have no idea when -- I'll gladly forward a copy of my
> "mailq" output. I deleted my earlier evidence, I'm afraid.
No "mailq" output needed. Just the relevant
> Why do you believe that your server is an open relay, as in, it
> will forward messages FROM spammers TO remote destinations.
> Wietse
Because it *is* accepting messages from outsiders (spammers) and is
using my server to relay those messages to remote destinations. It was
(and still is) my
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:44 PM PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 10/15/20 8:19 AM, Ian Evans wrote:
>
> > Is there a more efficient, memory stingy, faster milter way to run
> spamassassin, clamav, etc, or would you recommend sticking with amavis?
>
>
>
> very much personal choice. each comes with it's
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 06:04:20PM -0300, David Wells wrote:
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
> > check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access,
> > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/protected_destinations,
> >
I would think running an open relay test would be step one.
https://mxtoolbox.com/diagnostic.aspx
There are probably half a dozen online services that do this. Which brings me
to my question: Is there an open relay test website that is considered the
best? I have noticed some run multiple
Rich Wales:
> Hi. My mail server (memoryalpha.richw.org), running Postfix 3.3.0,
> recently started attracting open relay spam. I thought I had done all
Why do you believe that your server is an open relay, as in, it
will forward messages FROM spammers TO remote destinations.
Wietse
Hi. My mail server (memoryalpha.richw.org), running Postfix 3.3.0,
recently started attracting open relay spam. I thought I had done all
the appropriate things in Postfix to block open relay traffic, and I
hadn't seen any such traffic for a very long time, but suddenly I've
gotten three attacks
David Wells:
> Hi!
>
> I have a postfix-3.3.2 installation (installed from source on slackware
> 14.2 from the slackbuilds package) that does rbl checks in the
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions section. I have been seeing an increasing
> amount of spam coming in so I added more reject_rbl_client
Hi!
I have a postfix-3.3.2 installation (installed from source on slackware
14.2 from the slackbuilds package) that does rbl checks in the
smtpd_recipient_restrictions section. I have been seeing an increasing
amount of spam coming in so I added more reject_rbl_client instances
listing more
Someone mentioned earlier that the OP (Jason Long) might be a bot.
While I personally don't think this is the case, I do think we might be
getting trolled...
A quick Google search shows that this same username\email is on several
different sites recently asking similar questions for a
PGNet Dev:
> my usual postfix front-end workflow is
>
> postscreen
> if 'fail', reject
> if 'pass', then
> internal smtp
> etc
>
> i'd like to implement a 'maintenance/offline mode' -- WITH smtp response --
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:51:52AM -0700, PGNet Dev wrote:
> is there an already built-in maintenance-mode, or somesuch, in postfix?
> it'd be most convenient; if it's in docs, i've missed it.
Just shut down Postfix, that's equivalent to returning 4xx.
Bastian
--
Intuition, however illogical,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:51:52AM -0700, PGNet Dev wrote:
> my usual postfix front-end workflow is
>
> postscreen
> if 'fail', reject
> if 'pass', then
> internal smtp
> etc
>
> i'd like to implement a
On 10/16/20 2:10 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>>
>> I don’t recommend stock OpenSMTPD for security reasons, although I
>> have some patches that make it much better in this regard. However,
>> all of those relate to local deliveries. If you
> On Oct 16, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
> I don’t recommend stock OpenSMTPD for security reasons, although I
> have some patches that make it much better in this regard. However,
> all of those relate to local deliveries. If you can afford to disable
> local deliveries,
my usual postfix front-end workflow is
postscreen
if 'fail', reject
if 'pass', then
internal smtp
etc
i'd like to implement a 'maintenance/offline mode' -- WITH smtp response --
effectively adding
On 10/16/20 8:57 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Zsombor B wrote:
>> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see possible
>> bottlenecks in postfix?
>> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
>
> In theory? Sure, any of those could be a bottle neck. On actuality, the
>
Thank you.
I got my answer with your text.
On Friday, October 16, 2020, 02:19:20 PM GMT+3:30, Jaroslaw Rafa
wrote:
Dnia 16.10.2020 o godz. 08:02:30 Jason Long pisze:
> Thank you.
> Thus, in Postfix or Dovecot configuration file I can't change the standard
> record?
We already
We're friends, right? Regardless, I appreciate your reading the
documentation.
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Wietse Venema wrote:
Please correct the following misinformation:
[...]
This is is not a Postfix limitation, it is a Milter protocol limitation.
Enough information is exchanged during option
Please correct the following misinformation:
Postfix has some issues with milters. For starters, although
the milter protocol supports rejecting recipients during SMTP
RCPT, it doesn't support rewriting them until EOB (end of
message).
This is is not a Postfix limitation, it is a
On 13 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Zsombor B wrote:
> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see possible
> bottlenecks in postfix?
> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
In theory? Sure, any of those could be a bottle neck. On actuality, the bottles
necks are processing spam if you receive
> Date: Friday, October 16, 2020 08:02:30 +
> From: Jason Long
>> On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:13:45 AM GMT+3:30, Richard
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Date: Thursday, October 15, 2020 18:57:29 +
>>> From: Jason Long
>>>
>>> If the DNS administrator give me an A record then can I
Dnia 16.10.2020 o godz. 08:02:30 Jason Long pisze:
> Thank you.
> Thus, in Postfix or Dovecot configuration file I can't change the standard
> record?
We already wrote you a few times, that DNS configuration (A/MX record) has
NOTHING TO DO with Postfix or Dovecot configuration. NOTHING. These
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Jason Long wrote:
Thank you.
Thus, in Postfix or Dovecot configuration file I can't change the standard
record?
You a bot or something?
I think GPT-3 can understand more than you appear to do.
Good luck.
Thank you.
Thus, in Postfix or Dovecot configuration file I can't change the standard
record?
On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:13:45 AM GMT+3:30, Richard
wrote:
> Date: Thursday, October 15, 2020 18:57:29 +
> From: Jason Long
>
> If the DNS administrator give me an A record
36 matches
Mail list logo
