On 23 Nov 2020, at 13:24, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>> After the first message was accepted all of the rest
>>> were silently dropped as duplicates due to a very standard procmail
>>> recipe:
>>>
>>> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
>>> |
On 23 Nov 2020, at 13:34, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 23/11/2020 à 20:16, @lbutlr a écrit :
>> I would feel comfortable rejecting messages without a Message-ID.
> Maybe on smtp, but not on submission. FOr me policy there is completeley
> different
On submission postfix adds
On 23 Nov 2020, at 07:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>
>> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
>> | formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
>
> Who uses that?
Everyone who ever used procmail? Nearly everyone who ever used procmail?
It's even in the procmail man page.
On 23 Nov 2020, at 06:49, maciejm wrote:
> "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
RFC 822 has been obsoleted several times.
RFC 5322 states:
Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message
SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. Furthermore, reply messages
SHOULD have
On 29 Oct 2020, at 09:45, PGNet Dev wrote:
> otoh, spamassassin-milter's dev is here/active, on list.
> and has been _very_ helpful responsive to date.
All good points, but
1) It's not in FreeBSD ports which means I have to take special and specific
steps to keep it up-to-date
2) It means
On 29 Oct 2020, at 08:02, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 10/29/20 6:51 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Recently the behavior of spamass-milter or the underlying spamassasin has
>> changed such that the originating IP for secured submission email is being
>> tagged for PBL/Dynamic scores. Thi
Recently the behavior of spamass-milter or the underlying spamassasin has
changed such that the originating IP for secured submission email is being
tagged for PBL/Dynamic scores. This does;t happen often, but since all mail is
only accepted via TLSv1.2 this should not be happening.
The
On 22 Oct 2020, at 17:17, Wietse Venema wrote:=
>
> Demi M. Obenour:
>> That's because MUAs display the From: header, not the envelope address.
>> DMARC is aimed at preventing spoofing. If someone sends a message
>> that claims to be from me, but is not, that could damage my reputation
>> or
On 20 Oct 2020, at 19:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 05:29:22PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>>>> The current setup uses recipient_bcc_maps which I would have thought
>>>> did what I wanted, but it actually does all outbound mail as well.
&g
> On 20 Oct 2020, at 16:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:08:51PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> I would like to change this to only bcc mail that is being delivered
>> to local users.
>>
>> The current setup uses recipient_bcc_maps wh
I had a setup that BCCed all the mail on postfix to a backup account, sorted by
original date and cleaned out after a couple of weeks.
I would like to change this to only bcc mail that is being delivered to local
users.
The current setup uses recipient_bcc_maps which I would have thought did
On 19 Oct 2020, at 13:13, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Since 199.5.50.180 does not appear in the allowance for the SPF
> records that I can see
dig -x 199.5.50.180 +short
br2.vw.com.
VW does own Audi, so… mystery deepens?
--
'They're the cream!' Rincewind sighed. 'Cohen, they're the cheese.'
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
On 13 Oct 2020, at 12:03, Fred Morris wrote:
> Notwithstanding, any "fully qualified domain name" (FQDN) can have email sent
> to it; typically only the FQDN immediately below the zone cut, and also the
> subject of SOA and NS records, has MX records.
Pretty sure it is prefect fine to have
On 13 Oct 2020, at 09:45, Bernardo Reino wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Jason Long wrote:
>
>> I have an Internet domain name and a Linux server and I want to have an
>> email server for send and receive emails. For example, if my domain is
>> "example.net" then I want to have a
On 07 Oct 2020, at 21:02, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Is there something I should be doing to mitigate this problem?
Fail2ban or sshguard can both see abuse like this and firewall the IP, I
believe. I would add zen to the RBL lit, but really, nothing is happening here
other than annoying log
On 05 Oct 2020, at 13:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 5.10.2020 o godz. 17:28:04 Antonio Leding pisze:
>> * When both a 1:1 alias & a user are configured for a given email
>> address, why are emails sent to the alias\user only delivered to the
>> alias target?
>
> Because that's exactly what
On 05 Oct 2020, at 13:17, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Here is an old resource but one that I think is still very good is
> "Jim Seymour's suggestions/examples for Postfix anti-UCE configuration."
>
>http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.txt
It's good, but it does need some updating as
On 29 Sep 2020, at 11:46, J David wrote:
> domains that have no email service, i.e., those domains
> have A records in that range but no MX records at all.
As we've covered recently omit eh list, the is no requirement to have an MX
record in order to have a mail services. This might not matter
On 17 Sep 2020, at 19:24, Amari CH wrote:
> Do you think if email will go to death in short future?
No, but it’s importance is already far less than it used to be. My kids (early
18 and 23) rarely check their email (a couple of times a week, and only if they
are expecting something important)
> On 17 Sep 2020, at 19:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>>
>> This may have changed, but I doubt it. If you do not have MX records
>> there are definitely mail servers out there that will not send mail
>> to
On 17 Sep 2020, at 17:03, Fred Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Antonio Leding wrote:
>> TILT: MX records are not required for email to work — WOOT…
>
> Not required for SPF either. You can list the IP address(es). Of course if
> you have MX then for SPF it's simple "+mx".
This may have
On 01 Sep 2020, at 07:37, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Di, Sep 01, 2020 at 07:18:44 -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>> It could be as simple as the remote severing taking very slightly longer to
>> process for reasons on its end (slower lookup into its tables from the
>> secure ports,
On 01 Sep 2020, at 06:30, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> So I’m wondering why I have such a big time difference.
You would have to look deeper at the logs and see where the delay is being
introduced. This might be hard as it is 3/10th of a second per message.
It could be as simple as the remote
On 31 Aug 2020, at 07:34, Wietse Venema wrote:
> [An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
> http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.5.7.html]
Is there a what's new/changelog document for this version or is it mostly just
incremental improvements on 3.5.6 and I should
On 31 Aug 2020, at 10:08, Greg Sims wrote:
> (1) continue to ignore the MaxConnection Messages/Deferrals
> (2) reduce the number of processes per transport to 1
> (3) reduce the number of outlook transports to 2
4) add a footer to mails going to outlook along the lines of :"messages to
After updating Bind and dovecot and rebooting the server, I am getting these
errors on almost every incoming mail.
Bind is running, and I can manually lookup the domains and dig -x the IPs, so I
don’t think bind is the issue?
Aug 29 01:30:13 mail.covisp.net postfix/smtpd[40178]
On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:48, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 2020-08-26 16:03, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:59:34PM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia 27.08.2020 o godz. 07:53:05 Peter pisze:
>>>
>>> Or just use fail2ban.
>>
>> Yes, but the whole point is that fail2ban is
On 18 Aug 2020, at 04:51, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 11:29, Leonardo Rodrigues
> wrote:
>>
>> Question: is there some parameter to allow smtp daemons to,
>> somehow, fallback to non-TLS deliveries after, for example, N number of
>> delivery tries or N seconds, for
On 06 Aug 2020, at 04:32, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 5.08.2020 o godz. 14:23:00 Bob Proulx pisze:
>>
>> The Best Practice for forwarding today is not to do it. It has long
>> been a friendly allowed practice on the net. But as Yahoo, Google,
>> Microsoft, others, become the 800lb gorillas
On 06 Aug 2020, at 02:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> - Yes, on the *submission* ports serving mail clients, you SHOULD
> disable all TLS versions older than TLSv1.2. This may break
> some rather dated versions of Outlook. These should be upgraded,
> rather than neglected. I would not expect
On 05 Aug 2020, at 16:08, Asai wrote:
> The main question is just what will break if we allow TLS only.
Software more than a decade old that is unsupported.
TLSv1.0 and 1.1 should no longer be used for anything but opportunistic
unvalidated encryption on port 25, no non TLS should be used
On 02 Aug 2020, at 15:51, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This would avoid the need for hundreds of transport map entries,
> and would avoid the need keep adding/removing entries as cusomers host
> their email at outlook, or decide to take their business elsewhere.
Automatically adding the outlook
On 31 Jul 2020, at 14:18, John Regan wrote:
> This mail server has an SPF record for itself, but no DKIM or DMARC. It also
> has a working reverse DNS. Mail is received by this system from two postfix
> relays protected with spamassassin and monitored closely.
Yahoo doesn’t care, and IME will
On 30 Jul 2020, at 12:53, Wietse Venema wrote:
> main.cf:
>smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=yes
>smtp_tls_connection_reuse=yes
Do these setting show up in anyway int he logs (that is, does the log look any
different if a TLS connection is reused or a connection is using
cache_on_demand.
Given two machines (or more) running as mail.example.com what is the best
practices way of duplicating the certs for that domain so that each server has
valid certificates.
Third server that manages the certs and copies them to each mail server? A
database server on one machine that the other
On 19 Jul 2020, at 07:48, Martin Schmitt wrote:
> the credentials have been passed to Ralf Hildebrandt. Thanks Ralf! :-)
Good choice!
--
Real magic is the hand around the bandsaw, the thrown spark in the
powder keg, the dimension-warp linking you straight into the
heart of a
On 18 Jul 2020, at 07:25, ratatouille wrote:
> mail_version = 3.3.1
This is quite old. The current version of 3.3.x is 3.3.12.
> Jul 18 14:55:12 dualbit1 postfix/smtpd[493943]:
> p57b62c8e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de[87.182.44.142]: TLS cipher list
> "aNULL:-aNULL:HIGH:MEDIUM:+RC4:@STRENGTH:!aNULL"
On 06 Jul 2020, at 11:06, Robert Chalmers wrote:
> No to the first.
> I’m not missing any by grepping ‘unknown’ - if they are unknown users
They are not, that is not what "unknown" means on that log line.
Also, your attempt to match IP addresses over matches other numbers.
In this text
On 03 Jul 2020, at 02:53, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * SysAdmin EM:
>
>> The user is using as From Header "gmail.com" which is very wrong.
No, that is not at all wrong, much less "very" wrong. It is not malformed. It
is not an error in SMTP. It may be something that you do not want to allow, but
On 01 Jul 2020, at 10:28, SysAdmin EM wrote:
> The user is using as From Header "gmail.com" which is very wrong.
There is nothing "malformed" about 'from='
You can restrict your server to sending only mail from that matches the user
login, but I don't do that so I don't have that configuration
On 26 Jun 2020, at 09:13, Martin Terp Jensen wrote:
> These internal servers i trust, but sometimes mails from CRON gets send to
> me, i know, the best solution would be to disable cron mails
Uh… since cron send mails when action result in errors this seems like a bad
idea.
> So, for now i
On 21 Jun 2020, at 07:32, David Hartley wrote:
> erhaps not surprisingly the best MTU value turned out to be 1492, so I set my
> network card to 1492.
>
> Since then I have received two emails from btinternet.com.
But this problem was isolated to only mails for BT? You would get mails fine
On 19 Jun 2020, at 02:18, Nick Tait wrote:
> 1. My server was using the default MTU of 1500 bytes.
>
> 2. My connection to my ISP uses PPPoE, which adds an 8-byte header onto all
> packets travelling between my home to my ISP, effectively reducing the
> maximum packet size from 1500 bytes down
On 18 Jun 2020, at 09:24, Wietse Venema wrote:
> @lbutlr:
>> No, wrapping header lines does not affect DKIM if it is configured =
>> properly. The correct setting is c=3Drelaxed which means that white =
>
> smtp_line_length_limit breaks DKIM relaxed mode, because it
On 18 Jun 2020, at 05:38, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> I understand the reason for smtp_line_length_limit and for its default
> value of 998, which is of course good.
>
> But it is an occasional problem for me that this wrapping action is
> only applied at smtp stage and not earlier; in particular it
On 18 Jun 2020, at 02:45, David Hartley wrote:
> 2020-06-09T12:04:00+01:00 postfix/smtpd[7356]: connect from
> mailomta12-sa.btinternet.com[213.120.69.18]
> 2020-06-09T12:04:01+01:00 postfix/smtpd[7356]: Anonymous TLS
> connection established from mailomta12-sa.btinternet.com[213.120.69.18]:
On 17 Jun 2020, at 14:00, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
> Not possible yet. A flag exists for Exchange 2019 but we are running 2016 now
> and upgrade is not scheduled for now.
Perhaps showing the bouncing emails to whomever is in charge of this schedule
will change it, especially if any of the
On 17 Jun 2020, at 11:07, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> but when I start contacting them they easily complain with "too many
> concurrent connections" because all the mx hosts have been resolved to the
> same IP (well, IP pool, actually). These domains (not under my control) are
> hosted on a
On 12 Jun 2020, at 01:11, Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> But, on the other hand, who is still sending plaintext these days?
Nearly everyone using STARTTLS?
Someone who fails STARTTLS may then use SMTPS
> And why can't legitimate client use reasonable ciphers?
Define legitimate
> On 09 Jun 2020, at 23:29, yuv wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 01:16 -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> On 08 Jun 2020, at 16:21, yuv wrote:
>>>
>>> Some of [the alternatives to internet email] will achieve scale as
>>> well. At some point, the cost
> On 08 Jun 2020, at 16:21, yuv wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 20:36 -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 07 Jun 2020, at 06:38, yuv wrote:
>>> Is there a valid reason for a sender not to fix something so
>>> essential as DNS configuration?
>>
&
On 07 Jun 2020, at 06:38, yuv wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 14:22 +0200, A. Schulze wrote:
>> using "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" may trigger some false
>> positives. Not every sender have such perfect setups.
> Is there a valid reason for a sender not to fix something so essential as DNS
>
On 06 Jun 2020, at 14:04, Antonio Leding wrote:
> I respectfully submit that context matters far far more and ignoring that in
> a quest to find a solution to a widespread social ill and\or soothe a shared
> trauma is a very treacherous path. Even the most serious and extreme social
> ills do
> On 01 Jun 2020, at 03:16, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
When you post output like the following, place post in plain text so that the
output is easily read. What you have below is one big blob of text and you've
eliminated all the visual space the output generates to make the tabular data
On 29 May 2020, at 08:19, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
> 587 is so called submission, it's for communication between client <-> server
Client to server, but not server to client.
--
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the
On 28 May 2020, at 15:59, Thomas wrote:
> Am 28.05.20 um 23:48 schrieb @lbutlr:
>> On 28 May 2020, at 15:29, Thomas wrote:
>>> I of cource use my own domain where I pay for.
>> Yes, but read the rest of what I wrote, especially the parts I've
>> highlighted:
&
On 28 May 2020, at 15:29, Thomas wrote:
> I of cource use my own domain where I pay for.
Yes, but read the rest of what I wrote, especially the parts I've highlighted:
Do not create a fake address with someone else's domain. Do not use
mudomain.com because you neither own nor control
On 27 May 2020, at 09:53, Matteo Cazzador wrote:
>
> example1.com smtp:gw1.gateway.com
> example2.com smtp:gw2.gateway.com
> example3.com smtp:gw3.gateway.com
>
> than i use make "postmap transport".
And then you reload postfix?
--
"The sad thing about true stupidity is that
On 26 May 2020, at 15:11, Marvin Renich wrote:
> However, when I first set up greylisting on my family email server (it
> was exim way back then, but has long been postfix), I set it up so that
> all incoming mail was sent through spamassassin _during_ SMTP, prior to
> accept or reject. Mail
On 26 May 2020, at 13:24, J Doe wrote:
> You may want to investigate doing this at the MDA. If you run Dovecot in
> conjunction with Postfix, you could write a Sieve script that calls a shell
> script that then sends the notification to whatever third-party service you
> would like.
I used
On 24 May 2020, at 19:04, Ian Evans wrote:
> Based on another thread here, I want to move to using postscreen/postwhite
> and ditch postgrey.
>
> Just want to make sure I don't bungle stopping postgrey.
>
> So...
>
> - edit main.cf and remove "check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10023" from
On 25 May 2020, at 11:47, Thomas wrote:
> OK, I use now unkńown user NOREPLY
> NOREPLY
As I said, use a valid domain THAT YOU CONTROL.
Do not create a fake address with someone else's domain. Do not use
mudomain.com because you neither own nor control mydomain.com and do not use
mydoamin.com
On 23 May 2020, at 08:52, Thomas wrote:
> or
The norm is to use an address along the lines you describe there. I use
no-reply@. Emails to that address are accepted and discarded. Do not
use a fake domain or someone else's domain, of course. You can certainly have
the address be invalid so it
On 21 May 2020, at 12:49, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> I was wondering if greylisting might be a good option here.
It's a matter of how much Nanking you are willing to do and how much legitimate
mail your are willing to lose.
The usual method of greylisting where you tell a server to try again
> On 15 May 2020, at 10:18, Roland Freikamp
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently upgraded my mailserver-linux-system, which also upgraded Postfix
> from 3.4.6 to 3.4.9, and renewed the TLS-certificates (Let's Encrypt).
> The Postfix-configuration did not change.
> Since then, some mails could
On 11 May 2020, at 04:24, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Someone told me… that Google is more likely to classify email from small
> senders as spam if they are sent via IPv6, and less likely if they are sent
> via IPv4.
Short of Google publishing this information, I doubt that anyone knows this,
and
On 08 May 2020, at 02:54, Admin Beckspaced wrote:
> ups ... I think I can answer my own question?
> Why is it that the answer mostly comes once the email has been sent ;)
Because if it came before, you wouldn’t sent the message! (90% of the email
questions I write are never sent, hard to
On 07 May 2020, at 19:31, yuv wrote:
> I am operating a smallish postfix server for my law office. Many of
> our contacts use Google's calendar, and when they enter one of our
> email addresses into their calendar entries, we receive a flood of
> annoying emails. Invitations / reminders /
On 04 May 2020, at 13:08, Robert Nemet wrote:
>
> virtual_mailbox_domains =
> proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual-mailbox-domains.cf
What is in mysql-virtual-mailbox-domains.cf?
> virtual_mailbox_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual-mailbox-maps.cf
>
On 02 May 2020, at 10:56, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
> milter-greylist
You might want to read the list archives for recent (last five years?) threads
on greylisting.
--
Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire,
what do freedom fighters fight? They never
On 30 Apr 2020, at 10:52, Keith wrote:
> Using version 3.2.2 under FreeBSD 11.
The current version of 3.2 is 3.2.12, so update at least to that.
> There are a lot of this in the log as bots etc try to AUTH on port 25. Is
> there a way to turn this off or at least not have it scattered in the
On 19 Apr 2020, at 12:16, @lbutlr wrote:
> It is secure
Sorry, I thought this was Opportunistic TLS.
--
I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4
On 18 Apr 2020, at 11:04, Rich Felker wrote:
> It's not security theater because nobody's claiming it's secure.
> Rather it's a fairly weak form of hardening that increases the
> required capabilities an attacker needs to exploit a known-insecure
> system.
It is secure in the sense that the
On 16 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Any 'improvements' in Postfix DNSSEC support will have to be developed
> in the Postfix 3.6 release cycle. The results from those 'improvements'
> will never be merged back into Postfix 3.5 and earlier.
Is this planned for 3.6, or are you speaking
On 14 Apr 2020, at 11:42, Rick King wrote:
> We were thinking using a header_check rule, something like this; but didn't
> work due to the "backtracking limit exceeded" warning.
The From: header is entirely valid, and the issue is the user’s MUA is not
showing the full header (in an effort to
On 08 Apr 2020, at 17:01, @lbutlr wrote:
> Given an email address of user+ama...@example.com how can I reject all emails
> to that address that do not come from amazon.com?
I realize after ready this whole thread that I phrased this poorly and
incompletely.
Yes, I want to reject all
On 08 Apr 2020, at 22:43, Bill Cole
wrote:
> As a result, I reject all mail with a sender that matches 'bounce@' aimed at
> 'b...@scconsult.com' which is an address that has been exposed for 25 years
> in Usenet but never used for any sort of subscription or transaction. One
> could just as
On 08 Apr 2020, at 17:16, Allen Coates wrote:
> On 09/04/2020 00:01, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Given an email address of user+ama...@example.com how can I reject all
>> emails to that address that do not come from amazon.com?
>>
>> I think I did something like this once
Given an email address of user+ama...@example.com how can I reject all emails
to that address that do not come from amazon.com?
I think I did something like this once but if I did, I didn’t keep notes. :/
--
Nihil est--in vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.
On 31 Mar 2020, at 07:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 30.03.20 14:27, @lbutlr wrote:
>> When running pflogsumm I am getting many error like this:
>>
>> Use of uninitialized value $domain in string eq at /usr/local/bin/pflogsumm
>> line 1546, <> line 2833
On 30 Mar 2020, at 15:53, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Does the error change if reverse the file order?
I put then in order {postscreen, delivery, mail} and also {delivery,
postscreen, mail} and no difference, but all the logs are piped to sort before
being redirected to the file that pflogsumm
When running pflogsumm I am getting many error like this:
Use of uninitialized value $domain in string eq at /usr/local/bin/pflogsumm
line 1546, <> line 283375.
Use of uninitialized value $domain in substitution (s///) at
/usr/local/bin/pflogsumm line 1552, <> line 283375.
# awk
On 28 Mar 2020, at 20:26, Linda Pagillo wrote:
> I want to set up Postfix as a backup MX for a few of my Windows-based mail
> servers. I have never done this before so I have been researching to see what
> I could find.
Reconsider.
Backup MX servers are fiddly to maintain and work best when
On 21 Mar 2020, at 03:25, Wesley Peng wrote:
> But for mobile (I primarily use iOS)
I’ve used a lot of mail clients on iOS and I always end up back on the included
Mail.app. Many of the 3rd party ones require giving the developer access to my
mail (that’s not happening) and the rest offer some
On 20 Mar 2020, at 07:34, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Currently I have an issue (again; the previous one from a few months ago was
> resolved) with my messages sent to Gmail users - they are put into
> recipients' Spam folders. I managed to actually reach someone at Google,
> who told me that this is
On 19 Mar 2020, at 00:16, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2020-03-18 09:51:45 (+0800), Wesley Peng wrote:
>> Following this guide:
>> https://useplaintext.email/
>>
>> Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication?
>
> You should use what the content of the message needs modulo your
On 18 Feb 2020, at 13:48, a wrote:
> I looked around online to try to see examples to stop this but haven't found
> any yet. Maybe I'm missing something simple.
>
> My postfix server does allow incoming connections from the outside world to
> deliver mail to mailboxes on my server which is
On 27 Jan 2020, at 12:42, Bill Cole
wrote:
> Right, because they are only trying to authenticate once per connection and
> dropping the connection. If they had tried to authenticate 2 times on the
> same connection, there would be one 'disconnect from' line with 'auth=0/2’
Ah, that does
On 27 Jan 2020, at 10:41, James Moe wrote:
> On 2020-01-26 12:57 PM, Emmanuel BILLOT wrote:
>
>> status=deferred (host mx-eu.mail.am0.yahoodns.net
>> Messages from X.X.X.X temporarily deferred due to user complaints
> It would seem you recipients do not appreciate your "massive" newsletter.
>
On 27 Jan 2020, at 06:42, Bill Cole
wrote:
> It means that they attempted authentication 1 time but failed.
>
>> Sometimes I see auth=0/2 or auth=0/3.
>
> Which means they tried 2 or 3 times.
Hmm. I see blocks like these throughout my logs:
Jan 27 11:40:25 mail postfix/submit/smtpd[62764]:
On 26 Jan 2020, at 23:19, gaia45500 wrote:
> Many thanks for your explanations and your patience.
While you have solved one problem, for now, you will almost certainly continue
to have problems with yahoo because they are really bad at email.
--
"Oh damn", said Maladict.
On 23 Jan 2020, at 16:49, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:39:40PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> What is the expected behavior for an email with a double delimiter?
>>
>> user+foo+...@example.com
>
> The base portion of the address is &qu
What is the expected behavior for an email with a double delimiter?
user+foo+...@example.com
It /looks/ like postfix has no issue with this, but treats neither foo nor bar
as an address extension.
(Dovecot says the extension is “foo+bar”)
--
"Those people who think they know everything are
On 17 Jan 2020, at 02:02, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 16.01.2020 o godz. 15:46:31 @lbutlr pisze:
>>
>> Recheck? What do you mean> there is no rechecking the VALID domain is looked
>> up, it does not have an MX record, so postfix does not attempt to deliver it
&g
On 16 Jan 2020, at 09:35, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/16/2020 3:19 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>>> : Domain hotmal.com does not accept mail (nullMX)
>> So perhaps THIS is the issue on your server, you are not respecting nullMX
>> replies?
>
> Of course not. It's an
On 16 Jan 2020, at 00:02, azu...@pobox.sk wrote:
> Citát "@lbutlr" :
>
>> On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as hotmal.com or
>>> aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning mess
On 15 Jan 2020, at 16:11, @lbutlr wrote:
> There is only so much diaper-changing you can do for your users.
Sorry, one other thing I wanted to add.
You have no control over mail DELIVERY to any domain that is not under your
control. Even if everything in the headers is perfectly corr
On 15 Jan 2020, at 15:12, Noel Jones wrote:
> We've had problems with users mistyping domain names, such as hotmal.com or
> aoil.com. And they ignore the delay warning message because they still don't
> notice their typo.
Then they get the bounce when the max queue expires.
The messages in
On 15 Jan 2020, at 05:56, Sam Tuke wrote:
> I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are typically
> sent from servers which have port 25 closed.
And this is an issue why?
> Is it common practice to close port 25 on bulk sending servers? Should we do
> this for Postfix
101 - 200 of 686 matches
Mail list logo
