Re: Rejected mails in mailq

On 2022 Jun 16, at 02:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 15.06.22 16:35, @lbutlr wrote: >> Google has decided to reject some mails for a local user (mails in reply to >> gmail mails and to people they correspond with regularly, but that's not wha >>

Rejected mails in mailq

Google has decided to reject some mails for a local user (mails in reply to gmail mails and to people they correspond with regularly, but that's not wha this email is about). 4LNYt002TPzPlrQ 77012 Wed Jun 15 09:59:16 (host alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[142.250.152.27] said: 550-5.7.1

Re: Migrate mbox from 2.6.6 to 3.5.6

On 2022 May 20, at 08:24, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Bill Cole wrote in > : > > |In fact, 'mbox' standardization is horrendous. One shouldn't have > > That was overcome with RFC 4155 in 2005. Hah! Good one! -- Competent? How are we going to compete with that?

Re: Mail looping issue

On 2022 May 19, at 12:56, Jeremy Hansen wrote: > I’m trying to do a ssh port forward of port 25 from my local mta to an aws > node so my mta doesn’t have to be directly on the routable internet. Why does your mta need port 25 at all if it's not routable? > I’m seeing an interesting problem due

Re: spam emails with "to:" line missing

On 2022 Apr 15, at 16:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:30:19PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote: > >> However, it is *very* common for a BBC email to have a To header with >> no email address in it at all, > > This violates RFC5322 and earli

Re: spam emails with "to:" line missing

> On 2022 Apr 15, at 07:30, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > On 2022-04-15 10:47, Bernardo Reino wrote: > >> Many e-mails are sent to "BCC" lists, so they have no To: header (or >> have one with "undisclosed-recipients"). > > bcc does not remove or add to No, and that's not what what said.

Re: Multiple names for one mail server?

On 2022 Feb 25, at 14:56, John Levine wrote: > When a client does a STARTTLS on a port 25 or 587 session, or at > connection time on a port 465 session, the mail server sends back a > certificate with the server name in it. If that name does not match > the name the client is expecting, various

Re: Multiple names for one mail server?

On 2022 Feb 25, at 12:05, post...@ptld.com wrote: >> (The reason to do this is to make the move over seamless for the user of >> that domain, and that it how their previous host had the mail setup. >> Duplicating the setup means I do not have to go in and change the mail >> servers on every

Re: Multiple names for one mail server?

On 2022 Feb 25, at 08:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > The moment TLS enters into the picture, you start to need much more > complicated certificate management to get MUAs to see an acceptable > certificate for its expected nameme on ports 587 and 465, Ah. Hmm. That does sound like a bit of a

Re: Multiple names for one mail server?

On 2022 Feb 25, at 08:12, post...@ptld.com wrote: > On 02-25-2022 9:10 am, @lbutlr wrote: >> For example, I use mail.exampl.net as the FQDN for the mail sever, >> but if I have a hosted domain at example.com can I have its MX set to >> mail.example.com and point to the

Multiple names for one mail server?

Are there any issue with using multiple names for the same mail server? For example, I use mail.exampl.net as the FQDN for the mail sever, but if I have a hosted domain at example.com can I have its MX set to mail.example.com and point to the same IP without issue, or do I need to do something

Re: Fun and profit with mailq

On 2022 Feb 16, at 09:44, Noel Jones wrote: > To put everything on hold, insert check_client_access static:hold in one of > your restrictions. Something like: > > smtpd_client_restrictions = > check_client_access static:hold > ... stuff you have already ... Thanks, this is perfect. Will start

Re: Fun and profit with mailq

On 2022 Feb 16, at 07:49, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Users who want an unsanitised form of the queue content should consume > JSON. This is why I need actual messages in the hold queue so I can test. I do prefer -j if for nothing else that it returns nothing at all when the queue is empty while

Re: Fun and profit with mailq

On 2022 Feb 16, at 05:06, @lbutlr wrote: > What I would like to do is to execute a command that only returns output if > there are messages on hold On a related question, is there a way to tell postfix "put all outbound mail into the hold queue" so I can test some of this? I k

Fun and profit with mailq

The man page on sendmail contains a small section on mailq which explains the display o family. While the postqueue man page says that postqueue -p implements the mailq command vi shows(). The only mention of 'hold' on either of these man pages is in the description of the mailq/postqueue -p

Re: [OT] "private" emails aliases

On 2022 Jan 11, at 03:15, Felix Ingram wrote: > For letting users create the aliases by sending mail, I'd have a look at > either the SMTP authentication delegation option: Postfix SMTP Access Policy > Delegation or an external content filter. Thanks, that sounds very promising. (Sorry for

Re: [OT] "private" emails aliases

On 2022 Jan 10, at 10:37, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On 2022-01-10 18:25, @lbutlr wrote: > >> I can think of some (messy) ways to do this, but before I start >> cobbling something together, I am hoping this is something someone has >> already done. > >

[OT] "private" emails aliases

Is there an existing system out there that integrates with postfix that makes it simple for a user to add 'private' email addresses that are aliased to their real email and also to then bitbucket the email? What I am thinking about is something where a user can request a new alias and get back

Re: AUTH rate limit

On 2021 Nov 03, at 04:08, Markus Schönhaber wrote: > 03.11.21, 10:53 +0100, @lbutlr: > >> postfix/smtps/smtpd[5554] warning: AUTH command rate limit exceeded: 4 >> Where is this limit set? I looked through postconf -d | grep auth looking >> for something but did no

AUTH rate limit

postfix/smtps/smtpd[5554] warning: AUTH command rate limit exceeded: 4 Where is this limit set? I looked through postconf -d | grep auth looking for something but did not find anything. -- You're so bad at doing acid!

Re: Google spam...

On 17 Aug 2021, at 15:35, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > or (easier, but no idea whether this is effective), use an IMAP client > to move the message into the INBOX of a Gmail account, and then report > it as spam. When this has happened to me in the past I re-enable the POP import feature on gmail

Re: ALPACA writeup

> On 2021 Aug 14, at 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 11:54:12AM -0600, @lbutlr wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2021, at 17:48, raf wrote: >>> Note: I'm not recommending this. I expect that the existing default >>> has been arrived a

Re: ALPACA writeup

On 10 Aug 2021, at 17:48, raf wrote: > Note: I'm not recommending this. I expect that the existing default > has been arrived at after much observation and careful thought. > But the option to do this is there if that's what you want. It may be worth testing, as the setting may date from days in

www.postfix.org site appears to be down.

When going to https://www.postfix.org I get, after an invalid certificate error, > Apache Software Foundation Distribution Directory > > The directories linked below contain current software releases from the > Apache Software Foundation projects. Older non-recommended releases can be > found

Re: Search for free MX Backup Service

On 01 Jul 2021, at 23:54, Maurizio Caloro wrote: > > Searching any Service that offer free any possible MX Backup? MX backups are a legacy of 30-40 years ago when it was very common to have machines that only periodically connected to the Internet. There are many reasons they are a bad idea

Re: Unable to get Postfix to respond on port 465

On 11 Jun 2021, at 09:15, Linda Pagillo wrote: > 465 inet n - n - - smtpd > -o syslog_name=postfix/smtps > -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes This is incorrect. 465 should be set without a STARTTLS wrapper -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt > -o

Re: Controlling maildir sub-folder delivery?

On 04 May 2021, at 14:35, Marvin Renich wrote: > * Bill Cole [210504 15:12]: >> On 2021-05-04 at 14:55:29 UTC-0400 (Tue, 04 May 2021 14:55:29 -0400) >> is rumored to have said: >>> For sorting incoming mail into different maildir folders, i know general >>> advice is to have postfix deliver to

Re: Postfix stable release 3.6.0

On 29 Apr 2021, at 17:05, Wietse Venema wrote: >This release requires "postfix stop" before updating, or before >backing out to an earlier release, because some internal protocols >have changed. Otherwise, long-running daemons (pickup, qmgr, >verify, tlsproxy, postscreen) may fail

Re: Clients Sending Phantom Email

On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:28, Asai wrote: > We are getting reports, more and more, of email clients (Type App, Mac Mail, > iOS Mail) that seem to send email, and show that the email has been sent on > the client, but the mail server has no record of email ever reaching the SMTP > service, nor does

Re: Building and running Postfix as unprivileged user

On 27 Apr 2021, at 07:30, Paul Menzel wrote: > Thank you for your prompt reply. Searching for *unprivileged* in the mailing > list archives, I actually only found discussion of containers, and Victor’s > reply in the thread *Should I be root or postfix user to execute postfix > commands?* [1]:

Re: Certificate Postfix.org missing?

On 26 Apr 2021, at 17:05, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 26.04.2021 o godz. 23:06:49 Allen Coates pisze: >> >> Also, I understand that HTTPS downloads are a touch faster... > > What should be the reason for HTTPS downloads being faster when HTTPS requires > additional encryption and decryption on

Re: Change default reject message

On 22 Apr 2021, at 12:49, Wietse Venema wrote: > rud...@padaru.de: >> Good evening, >> Unfortunately, I have to revisit my topic from back in the day >> >> Sending the proper reject-messages through the postfix works wonderfully, as >> long as it is an external sender. >> >> But now if a

Re: Specific DNS server

On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:20, Benny Pedersen wrote: > n 2021-04-22 16:44, Marco Pizzoli wrote: >> Due also to some other constraints, I ended up relying on static >> entries in /etc/hosts. > > this file is only for when real dns server is down, not used when dns server > is up What? /etc/hosts is

Re: Certificate Postfix.org missing?

On 21 Apr 2021, at 07:06, IL Ka wrote: > It should be easy to install Letsencrypt certificate there, but I am not sure > if it's worth the effort Since http is starting to be flagged as a security problem and users will be getting (or may already be getting) scary warnings when loading http,

Re: Postfix : corrupted SMTP transactions?

> On 16 Apr 2021, at 05:52, Bill Cole > wrote: > > On 16 Apr 2021, at 2:59, @lbutlr wrote: > >> On 15 Apr 2021, at 16:23, Rob McGee wrote: >>> Being pedantic, however, I'd suggest using the IANA and RFC 8314 port name, >>> "submissions&quo

Re: Postfix : corrupted SMTP transactions?

On 15 Apr 2021, at 16:23, Rob McGee wrote: > Being pedantic, however, I'd suggest using the IANA and RFC 8314 port name, > "submissions", because that's more specific and correct than "smtps", which > name implies that it might be a substitute port for smtp, 25. Submission is port 587 and uses

Re: idea: inlining pcre, cidr, etc and detecting TLS handshakes

On 15 Apr 2021, at 06:41, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > Port 465 defaults to having TLS wrapper mode disabled Won't this prevent anyone from using smtps? The example config in postfix works, why not use it? -- I'm getting really sick of being the voice in the back of the room that everyone

Re: Postfix : corrupted SMTP transactions?

On 14 Apr 2021, at 15:55, (lists) Denis BUCHER wrote: > smtps inet n - - - - smtpd > -o syslog_name=postfix/smtps > -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes > -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject Seems short. smtps inet n

Re: alias group and limit

On 12 Apr 2021, at 13:15, natan wrote: > But user (on web panel) can create yourself that's aliases group Then that is the source of your problem. Though I am not sure what the issue is with sending mail to a group of 200 people, assuming you are limiting the group to only aliases within their

Re: warning: dnsblog_query lookup error

On 08 Apr 2021, at 07:31, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On 2021-04-08 14:16, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> in addition to this, you can whitelist outlook's IP ranges at postscreen >> level, as they "likely" aren't what postscreen is supposed to stop - bots. > > there is bots at microsoft, there

Re: Milter calls based on conditions and deliberate delays

> On 07 Apr 2021, at 14:35, Ralph Seichter wrote: > > * Wietse Venema: > >> What problem are you trying to solve? > > Milters A, B and C in my example scenario can trigger asynchronous > actions in backend systems, the results of which become available only > after a delay caused by

Re: problem connecting from Outlook Android

On 01 Apr 2021, at 12:31, DEPRÉ Gaëtan - NGServers.com wrote: > mua_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, reject > mua_relay_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient, > reject_unknown_recipient_domain, permit_mynetworks, > permit_sasl_authenticated,reject I know

Re: problem connecting from Outlook Android

On 31 Mar 2021, at 23:26, gde...@ngservers.com wrote: > root@server:~# telnet mailserver.blabla.com 587 Does your server support port 465? That should be configured to always use SSL without the need for STARTTLS. Perhaps outlook is simply not sending STARTTLS (which makes sense, as Outlook

Re: [External] Postfix and Mimedefang for single user?

> On 28 Mar 2021, at 19:40, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Hi LuKreme, > > I believe once you hook in MIMEDefang with postfix, it's a general purpose > filter that uses the milter interface to process emails at various stages of > the mail dialogue and processing. It hurts my brain to think

Postfix and Mimedefang for single user?

I would like postfix to send mail being delivered to a specific virtual user user on to mimedefang, but the instructions that I see on setting up mimedefang are just to set it up as a general milter. Or do I need to configure mime defang itself to only process the mail to that user? Also,

Re: spamassassin user_prefs getting ignore

On 21 Mar 2021, at 11:51, Steve Dondley wrote: > user=debian-spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u ${user} -f -e /usr/sbin/sendmail > -oi -f ${sender} ${recipient} As Bill Cole said, the -f is obsolete, is not needed, and does literally nothing. If you check the man page for spamc, you will see that

Re: Postfix Helo reverse Exception

On 20 Mar 2021, at 19:21, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 3/20/21 8:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >> But it is better to stop using reject_unknown_helo_hostname because >> the are many misconfigured servers that send legitimat mail. > > That is an interesting piece of advice. I have tested this

Re: _time_limit

> On 20 Mar 2021, at 03:19, Simon Wilson wrote: > > 0 check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf > 11 ... > 12 policyd-spf_time_limit = 3600 Just out of curisotu, have you tried it exactly as the sample shows: policy unix - n n - 0

Re: How to add message-id to In-Reply-to header in bounce template

On 04 Mar 2021, at 05:54, Wietse Venema wrote: > enable_threaded_bounces (default: no) Oooo, nice! Looking forward to 3.6. -- She hated everything that predestined people, that fooled them, that made them slightly less than human. --Witches Abroad

Re: restricting MAIL FROM:

On 04 Mar 2021, at 04:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> csmtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname >> check_helo_access pcre:/etc/postfix/helo_checks.pcre permit >> >> helo_checks.pcre: >> /^\$/ REJECT No Funny addresses > > you mistook helo string with sender address. Yes,

Re: restricting MAIL FROM:

On 03 Mar 2021, at 12:45, @lbutlr wrote: > csmtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname Paste error. That should, of course, be smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname check_helo_access pcre:/etc/postfix/helo_checks.pcre permit -- 'That's blasphemy,' s

Re: restricting MAIL FROM:

> On 03 Mar 2021, at 09:33, Paul Netpresto wrote: > > Hi > > What is the best way to block MAIL FROM: addresses where the username > component begins with a '$' character. Is this recommended or bad practice?. Why would you want to do that? The local part of the email address is defined

Re: Deprecated: white is better than black

On 25 Feb 2021, at 06:30, John Dale wrote: > since racism is not clearly defined and may not exist Please kill this thread before more of this fetid feces gets posted. -- "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you."

Re: Deprecated: white is better than black

On 24 Feb 2021, at 14:57, Emmett Culley wrote: On 2/24/21 12:40 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote: On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Wietse Venema wrote: Postfix version 3.6 deprecates terminology that implies white is better than black. Instead, Postfix prefers 'allowlist', 'denylist', and variations on those

Re: Deprecated: white is better than black

. Thank you! script execution error (#1): /Users/lbutlr/mysisg: No such file or directory ##

Re: Cloud9.net related responses

On 12 Feb 2021, at 01:41, Chris Green wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:09:06PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: >> Bryan L. Gay wrote: >>> I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to: >>> postfix-us...@cloud9.net in the header. I had to update my filters to >>> get them sorted into my postfix

Re: Cloud9.net related responses

On 11 Feb 2021, at 23:09, Bob Proulx wrote: > P.S. It's a little strange to see an '@' in the List-Id. But other > than mentioning it in passing I am going to ignore it. :-) It is a bit unusual, and back when I was using proemial I had to account for that with a special case check to grab the

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 11 Feb 2021, at 12:56, Chris Green wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:12:53PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote: >>> Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be >>> changed for each system. I was just ho

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote: > Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be > changed for each system. I was just hoping that postfix could use > something that was there already (the systems do know their names and > domains already). You keep saying

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 10 Feb 2021, at 10:41, Chris Green wrote: >chris$ postconf -d myorigin >myorigin = $myhostname >chris$ postconf -d myhostname >myhostname = t470.localdomain >chris$ dnsdomainname >zbmc.eu >chris$ hostname -f >t470.zbmc.eu >chris$ hostname >t470 > > So

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 10 Feb 2021, at 10:05, Chris Green wrote: > but this doesn't seem to have worked. What am I doing wrong now? (I > have run 'newaliases'). what does postconf -d myhostname mydomain myorigin Report? It should report: myhostname = isbdGandi.isbd.uk mydomain = isbd.uk myorigin = $myhostname

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 10 Feb 2021, at 07:36, Chris Green wrote: > So myhostname isn't explicitly set. That is correct. Myshostname is not normally set, it is taken from the machine name by postfix. The only reason you would declare it in main.cf is to override the name for some reasons. postconf -d myhostname

Re: Can I get postfix to use what's returned by dnsdomainname for mydomain?

On 10 Feb 2021, at 07:03, ludic...@gmail.com wrote: >> It would be really handy if I could get postfix to use the value returned by >> the dnsdomainname command for its mydomain value as I could then use the >> same main.cf file in several headless 'send only' >> systems where postfix is used

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 10 Feb 2021, at 04:13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 09.02.21 14:22, @lbutlr wrote: >> But yes, each admin needs to look at their logs and see who >> is still using encryption they should not be using (especially since this >> probably indicates they have not upda

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 09 Feb 2021, at 04:20, Doug Hardie wrote: > > Cc: Postfix users > To: "@lbutlr" Please do not do this. I am subscribed to the list. I will see your message on the list. -- 'I thought dwarfs didn't believe in devils and demons and stuff like that.' 'That's true, bu

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 09 Feb 2021, at 06:21, Dominic Raferd wrote: > On 09/02/2021 12:36, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 09 Feb 2021, at 04:23, Dominic Raferd wrote: >>> This shows plenty of 'good' servers still using TLSv1 or TLSv1.1 - >>> including the postfix-users list servers. Of

Re: providing queue id for the clients

On 09 Feb 2021, at 05:45, Wietse Venema wrote: > Zsombor B: >> It turned out during an investigation that our postfix servers don't >> provide a queue id for the external clients when accepting a new email. > > Please provide evidence. > > Postfix SMTP client logging: > ... status=sent (250

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 09 Feb 2021, at 04:23, Dominic Raferd wrote: > This shows plenty of 'good' servers still using TLSv1 or TLSv1.1 - including > the postfix-users list servers. Of course they would probably downgrade to > plaintext if required, but that would reduce security. That is odd. My mails from the

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 09 Feb 2021, at 03:53, @lbutlr wrote: > Looking over the last few days, I see connections rom servers I do not accept > mail from, so it looks to me based on my logs that I could easily reject > TLSv1 or TLSv1.1 without missing a single mail. Meant to include this in case t

Re: Stucked with "unable to look up host"

On 08 Feb 2021, at 06:20, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 31.01.21 09:56, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote: >> Indeed, it was running chrooted but resolv.conf has the same content > === # postconf -nf >> smtp_tls_protocols = TLSv1.2, !TLSv1.1, !TLSv1, !SSLv2, !SSLv3 > > this is superflous and

Re: User script for modifying main.cf and other config files

On 08 Feb 2021, at 09:44, Michael Ströder wrote: > On 2/8/21 2:28 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >> Use a tool like Webmin¹. > > IIRC webmin has a long history of security issues. They all do. >> It is, in my opinion a very very bad idea, > > I don't understand why you recom

Re: User script for modifying main.cf and other config files

On 07 Feb 2021, at 08:54, Alex wrote: > I'm working on a front-end to modify our main.cf and other config > files, such as the transport and relay_recips file and want to be sure > I'm doing it securely. Use a tool like Webmin¹. It is, in my opinion a very very bad idea, but the way to do this

Re: Catch a forged Return Path

On 06 Feb 2021, at 02:19, ludic...@gmail.com wrote: > but not sure how to implement that on a Plesk machine. Does Plesk not give you access to the main.cf file? How do you configure postfix at all? > To use the postscreen(8) service to block mail,

Re: Corner cases in SSL_shutdown.

On 03 Feb 2021, at 10:02, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:34 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >>> However, in my role as an admin, you just gave me excellent >>> justification to never run Postfix. >> If you think that is a reason to not run Postfix then

Re: Corner cases in SSL_shutdown.

On 02 Feb 2021, at 08:27, Leo Bicknell wrote: > However, in my role as an admin, you just gave me excellent > justification to never run Postfix. If you think that is a reason to not run Postfix then you can't run SMTP at all. You do not get to redefine standards just on your whim. --

Re: rejecting 'fancy' TLDs, allowing a specified one ?

On 30 Jan 2021, at 11:20, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 12/18/20 8:38 AM, @lbutlr wrote: >> I do this: >> >> /.*automators\.fm$/ DUNNO >> /.*counter\.social/ DUNNO >> /.*ometria.email/ DUNNO >> /.*\.(com|net|org|edu|gov|ca|mx|de|dk|fi|fr|uk|us|tv|info|

Re: Conditional relayhost based on message size

On 16 Jan 2021, at 02:48, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Since the queue manager has no mechanism for size-dependent selection of > a default transport Postfix does, however, know the size of the message based if it is over or under the message_size_limit, and it must know that before the message

Re: Reject email based on a key header?

On 07 Jan 2021, at 17:13, Wietse Venema wrote: >> Similarly, given a email address of "p...@example.com" would it be = >> possible to reject all emails to that address that did not contain an = >> extension in the user name? I should have said to "only allow emails that contain an address

Reject email based on a key header?

Given an email address like admin-...@example.com is it possible to REJECT all email to that address that doesn't contain a header "X-foobar" (or maybe a header that that is "X-foobar: ")? I know I could do this for all email addresses, but doing it for one would require some sort of simple

Re: Using header_checks to file mail into junk folder

On 31 Dec 2020, at 12:36, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 31.12.20 13:52, Kris Deugau wrote: >> I'm curious why; on-delivery message sorting like this is pretty much what >> sieve is *for*... > > either is fine until incompetent users start creating rules they don't > understand and then

Re: Javamail connection

On 22 Dec 2020, at 07:19, James B. Byrne wrote: > it appears to me that > connecting to port 25 with STARTTLS is the accepted practice. The recommendation for years has been to use port 587 (submission) for STARTTLS and to never use port 25 for anything but server-to-server communication. --

Re: rejecting 'fancy' TLDs, allowing a specified one ?

On 18 Dec 2020, at 07:54, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 18.12.2020 o godz. 06:38:32 @lbutlr pisze: >> /.*\.(com|net|org|edu|gov|ca|mx|de|dk|fi|fr|uk|us|tv|info|eu|es|il|it|nl|name|jp|host|au|nz|ch|tv)$/ >> DUNNO >> /.*\.*$/ 550 Mail to or from this TLD is not allowed >

Re: rejecting 'fancy' TLDs, allowing a specified one ?

On 16 Dec 2020, at 04:14, Dominic Raferd wrote: > /etc/postfix/reject_domains: > > /@abcd\.biz$/ DUNNO > /\.bid$/ REJECT We reject all .bid domains > /\.biz$/ REJECT We reject all .biz domains I do this: /.*automators\.fm$/ DUNNO /.*counter\.social/ DUNNO /.*ometria.email/ DUNNO

Re: not an open relay, but something happened

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 10:50, Michael wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:57:45 PM CET, Benny Pedersen wrote: >> why do you accept your own domain in port 25 as envelope sender ? > > because i want to receive my own posts in this or any other mailing list. That is not relevant. Message

Re: spamsources.fabel.dk

On 10 Dec 2020, at 07:12, Bill Cole wrote: > On 10 Dec 2020, at 6:48, @lbutlr wrote: > >> Some setups do this. Certainly before psotscreen if I received mail and SA >> scored it above a certain level the mail was effectively silently dropped. >> (Not in point of

Re: spamsources.fabel.dk

On 10 Dec 2020, at 03:58, Vincent Pelletier wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:38:30 +1300, David Neil wrote: >> Evidently we share frustration. > > This is an understatement :) . > Just seeing the subject of your original email made my blood pressure > go all over the place. One of the early

Re: Can I somehow customise the From: address when root sends mail?

On 09 Dec 2020, at 05:59, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 9.12.2020 o godz. 04:55:13 @lbutlr pisze: >> >> Hmm. Might have to edit the /etc/aliases and run newalaises then. > > /etc/aliases works for incoming email. No, that is definitely not correct. It works for intern

Re: Can I somehow customise the From: address when root sends mail?

On 09 Dec 2020, at 03:00, Chris Green wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 02:33:37AM -0700, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 08 Dec 2020, at 13:04, Chris Green wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:39:07PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote: >>>> On 08 Dec 2020, at 10:56, Chris Green wrote:

Re: Can I somehow customise the From: address when root sends mail?

On 08 Dec 2020, at 13:04, Chris Green wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:39:07PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote: >> On 08 Dec 2020, at 10:56, Chris Green wrote: >>> While I can look through the E-Mail header to see where the message >>> has come from it would be good if I cou

Re: Postfix says "Cannot start TLS: handshake failure" when try to send to Exchange 2007 Server

On 30 Nov 2020, at 12:07, SysAdmin EM wrote: > TLS: handshake failure Nov 30 15:29:40 smarthost04-ded > I have read the documentation but I cannot understand why this error occurs. Because the server running thirteen year old software does not support valid encryption methods. Here is an

Re: lower case email address for delivery

> On 28 Nov 2020, at 06:35, John Fawcett wrote: > > On 28/11/2020 11:30, Juerg Reimann wrote: >> Dear list members, >> >> Interesting phenomenon on a newly setup system: >> >> 2020-11-28T11:15:48+01:00 localhost postfix/lmtp[98782]: [ID 197553 >> mail.info] DDB5E8456: to=, >>

Re: empty message-ID

On 24 Nov 2020, at 17:23, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > That's the reason why I ignore the specifics of your setup and concentrate > on de-duplication in general. Interesting rationalization. But sure, have it your way. -- 'A man like that could inspire a handful of broken men to conquer a

Re: empty message-ID

On 24 Nov 2020, at 15:08, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze: >>> Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those, >> >> No. >> >> Please re-read what I wrote. > > So, I looked through my archives and f

Re: empty message-ID

On 24 Nov 2020, at 13:57, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 12:20:23 @lbutlr pisze: >>> I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking >>> about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it, >>> the r

Re: empty message-ID

On 24 Nov 2020, at 02:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 16:29:13 @lbutlr pisze: >> >> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives >> first. > > Unless you use greylisting That's a whole different issue and anyone using gr

Re: empty message-ID

On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:55, Bob Proulx wrote: > @lbutlr wrote: >> Bob Proulx wrote: >>> But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to >>> the way Gmail does things. And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the >>> first message with an

Re: empty message-ID

On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:51, Bob Proulx wrote: > @lbutlr wrote: >> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: >>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze: >>>> >>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that >

Re: empty message-ID

On 24 Nov 2020, at 05:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 23.11.20 16:30, @lbutlr wrote: >> Or you use procmail/Sieve to add a reply-to header to messages that have >> the mailing list email in the headers. > It's silly to set up procmail rule to remove "duplicate&quo

Re: empty message-ID

On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:40, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: >> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze: >>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that >>> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that. >> If someone gets

Re: empty message-ID

On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze: >> >> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that >> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that. > Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >