> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 12:33:57PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>> On 2022-01-22 at 23:00:55 UTC-0500 (Sat, 22 Jan 2022 23:00:55 -0500)
>> Ruben Safir
>> is rumored to have said:
>>
>> >I am really lost as to why dovecot is not authenticating
>> >
>> >I have
>> >
>> >smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
>> >
>>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 05:56:31PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> >> > noauth unix - - n - - smtp
>> >> > -o smtp_sasl_enable=no
>> >> > -o smtp_sender_dependent_aut
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 05:11:02PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> > Therefore your master.cf file needs to have an least one additional
>> > smtp-based transport, with either SASL disabled entirely, and/or
>> > sender-dependent authentication disabled, o
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 02:03:29PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> > IIRC Wietse already suggested a work-around, by making the
>> > sender-dependent authentication settings be transport-specific.
>> >
>> > In particular the internal nexthop th
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 08:01:27AM +1100, raf wrote:
>
>> > It is an issue with email that postfix has received, via fetchmail, and is
>> > attempting to deliver to another system. Authentication is being
>> > attempted, without it being required or requested, at least as far as I
>> > can
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:22:40PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4
>
> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>> > I would imagine that Postfix can only authenticate to
>> > servers that have entries in /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd.
>> >
>> > smtp_sasl_password_maps
> Wietse Venema:
>> Joe Acquisto-j4:
>> > For version 3.7.4, is there a means of disabling for smtp per user,
>> > per domain, per IP, when "smtp_sender_dependent_authentication =
>> > yes"?
>>
>> Postfix will search smtp_sasl_
. . .
> I would imagine that Postfix can only authenticate to
> servers that have entries in /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd.
>
> smtp_sasl_password_maps (default: empty)
>
> Optional Postfix SMTP client lookup tables with one
> username:password entry per sender, remote hostname
> or
> Wietse Venema:
>> Joe Acquisto-j4:
>> > For version 3.7.4, is there a means of disabling for smtp per user,
>> > per domain, per IP, when "smtp_sender_dependent_authentication =
>> > yes"?
>>
>> Postfix will search smtp_sasl_
For version 3.7.4, is there a means of disabling for smtp per user, per domain,
per IP, when "smtp_sender_dependent_authentication = yes"?
Docs/supplements seem say some roughly analogous settings were available pre V
3.x, but are now deprecated. I've not found any current setting while
. . .
> OK, here goes -
>
> Using version 3.4.7 packaged by Suse. I use "fetchmail" to retrieve email
> via imap one of which is gmail. The fetched mail is all sent to a local "off
> box" machine, via postfix, spamassassin and clamav, all on the same server.
> The off box machine let's
> On 2022-01-17 at 20:09:55 UTC-0500 (Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:09:55 -0500)
> Joe Acquisto-j4
> is rumored to have said:
>
>
>> Sorry for the garbled message. Looking for the config files, etc that
>> are normally requested.
>
>
> The non-default main.c
>>>
>> > > One addition:
>
>The swaks command line you'll need to test properly will be something like
this:
swaks -tls -t tar...@example.com --auth-user joea --server
mail.example.com:587
>>>
>>> Thanks, that got me over that hump. Test email went through,
>>>
>> > One addition:
>>> The swaks command line you'll need to test properly will be something like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> swaks -tls -t tar...@example.com --auth-user joea --server
>>> mail.example.com:587
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, that got me over that hump. Test email went through,
>>
>> Now to
>> One addition:
>>
>> The swaks command line you'll need to test properly will be something like
>> this:
>>
>> swaks -tls -t tar...@example.com --auth-user joea --server
>> mail.example.com:587
>>
>
> Thanks, that got me over that hump. Test email went through,
>
> Now to translate this
> One addition:
>
> The swaks command line you'll need to test properly will be something like
> this:
>
> swaks -tls -t tar...@example.com --auth-user joea --server
> mail.example.com:587
>
Thanks, that got me over that hump. Test email went through,
Now to translate this effort into
> On 2022-01-13 at 20:26:53 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:26:53 -0500)
> Joe Acquisto-j4
> is rumored to have said:
>
> [...]
>> Would it be valid to presume that an SMTP server that can be connected
>> to,
>> securely, via Outlook, Thunderbird
> On 2022-01-13 at 13:09:45 UTC-0500 (Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:09:45 -0500)
> Joe Acquisto-j4
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> While reading the Postfix SASL doc,
> (http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#client_sasl),
>> I puzzled over a few things.
>>
>>
While reading the Postfix SASL doc,
(http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#client_sasl),
I puzzled over a few things.
- "The smtp_tls_security_level setting ensures that the connection to the
remote smtp server will be encrypted, and smtp_sasl_tls_security_options
removes the prohibition
> Hello list,
>
> I have got a DSL from the ISP, having a static IP.
> Can I run postfix with this IP for accepting email for my own
domain?
>
> ありがとう
> えりな
Late to the party, but, certainly. Many here do. However, exposing your
mail port "to the world"
might entice much more "unfriendly
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 19:38:05 +0100
>> From: "Claus R. Wickinghoff"
>>
Today I find only a directory listing at www.postfix.org or
>>> www.postfix.com
>> With http it's working.
>>
>> With https I get a certificate warning (issued for
>> archive.science.uu.nl) and a directory
> raf wrote:
>> Being flippant, it would protect against a
>> man-in-the-middle-attack where someone tricks you into
>> reading false online documentation. :-)
>
> Why bother? Most of us can misread the docs perfectly well all on our
> own...
>
> -kgd
Today I find only a directory listing
. . .
>
> I did not notice that adding non_smtpd_milters also caused off
> box (smtpd) mail to be scanned twice, before and after
> spamassassin.
>
> Apparently having both smtpd_milters and non_smtpd_milters
> specified in main.cf causes that.
>
> Initially it appeared to me that
> On 22 Feb 2021, at 18:40, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
On 22 Feb 2021, at 17:27, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Post fix version 3.4.7. with Spamassassin. While adding virus
>>>> scanning (clamav) noticed during testing
>>>> that any mai
> On 24/02/21 11:47 am, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> Added Virus scanning to a SOHO stetup. clamav-milter is directing (?)
> "infected" mail to postfix HOLD queue.
>
> Perhaps rather than having clamav-milter put the message on hold, it
> might be possible to
Added Virus scanning to a SOHO stetup. clamav-milter is directing (?)
"infected" mail to postfix HOLD queue.
That's fine.
First thought is to process the queue'd mail, alter the subject line, based on
the added descriptive header line, and
deliver it to the intended user(s). I don't
> On 22 Feb 2021, at 17:27, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> Post fix version 3.4.7. with Spamassassin. While adding virus
>> scanning (clamav) noticed during testing
>> that any mail send from the postfix host does not get processed by
>> spamassassin.
>>
Post fix version 3.4.7. with Spamassassin. While adding virus scanning
(clamav) noticed during testing
that any mail send from the postfix host does not get processed by spamassassin.
Postfix does accept it and passes it right thorough without any indication it
was passed through
spamd or
> I'm revisiting blocking certain attachments. A multi part question:
> Implementation, logging, testing.
>
> Seems the accepted way to do attachment blocking is something like this:
>
> in /etc/postfix/main.cf added, without quotes: "mime_header_checks =
>
I'm revisiting blocking certain attachments. A multi part question:
Implementation, logging, testing.
Seems the accepted way to do attachment blocking is something like this:
in /etc/postfix/main.cf added, without quotes: "mime_header_checks =
regexp:/etc/postfix/block_attachments"
in
> michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
Due to some recent malware (in attachments, obvious stuff) wanted to add AV
> scanning. I gather "Amavis-new" is the hot ticket these days,
>>> I deal with Sophos products and would like to use their linux product to do
> the scanning. Seems to be
Not to waste anyone's time, but I posted this on SA list and a Sophos site,
but, came up with zip. Not even a "do-dah". Beyond "experiences"
any leads to general "how to: guides that work in practice?
>> SOHO system, on virtual machines. Fairly recent versions. Running openSUSE
>> Leap 15.1.
>>>
> kris_h:
>> Hey Wietse,
>>
>> thank you for this clearification.
>>
>> What do you think about using the reject-recipient /\$\{/-rule?
>
> As a temporary rule, it may have made sense when the Exim bug was new.
>
> As a permanent 'deny' rule, it won't block new exploits.
>
> Wietse
Pardon the OT post, but looking for comments on smartmontools and
GSmartControl, disk monitoring software. Off list only replies are fine with
me.
Sorry to post OT, but anyone having issues with mimecast?
I normally send via my providers mail server (Specturm aka TimeWarner). Email
to certain address never arrived, no bounce.
Setup to send to their domain and/or IP via their published MX and
immediately got "451 - IP temporarily
>>>> Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> 10/20/16 1:56 PM >>>
>Joe Acquisto-j4:
>> Currently have postifx configured to relay mail via a "relay_host"
>> (main.cf). There is a need to send mail to a certain domain via
>> a different
Currently have postifx configured to relay mail via a "relay_host" (main.cf).
There is a need to send mail to a certain domain via a different host. Google
has suggested a few ways, transport hash, header filter.
Since this special destination has a primary and a secondary IP, how might
Perhaps it's time to change the subject line?
>>> On 8/23/2016 at 1:16 AM, in message
<388d98f9-e63e-4d0a-865a-f32814510...@billmail.scconsult.com>, "Bill Cole"
<postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2016, at 16:14, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>
>> Any chance of assistance here w
>>> On 8/22/2016 at 7:31 PM, in message
<6d14c5d6-a707-499e-854b-5287d47b8...@kreme.com>, "@lbutlr"
<krem...@kreme.com>
wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2016, at 14:14, Joe Acquisto-j4 <j...@j4computers.com>
wrote:
>> There is a need to add disclaimers to outgoin
Any chance of assistance here with alterMIME?There is a need to add
disclaimers to outgoing mail.
I have it configured (one supposes) to be complaint free on restart of postfix
and can see from /var/log/mail that is does act on the specific email addresses
(senders) that I intended. At
>Please provide concrete evidence as requested.
>
> Wietse
Entirely my misinterpreting what I observed. Working as intended/expected.
Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your gentle response.
postfix restart"
Was that naive?
HTH.
>>>> Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> 08/18/16 10:10 AM >>>
>Joe Acquisto-j4:
>> Using postfix 2.5.6.
>>
>> In main.cf, changed "relayhost" from and IP address to a valid domain.
>
> - the "sen
Using postfix 2.5.6.
In main.cf, changed "relayhost" from and IP address to a valid domain.
- the "sender" changed from the original sender domain to the host name and
domain of the postfix server.
- the mail was shown as "queued" instead of "delivered"
What can I do to retain the senders
/main.cf ?
>>> "Joe Acquisto-j4" <j...@j4computers.com> 05/12/16 11:33 AM >>>
Postfix version 2.5.6 being used as a relay for chatty internal processes.
Suddenly, one of them is complaining of this error, in the midst of a 250 ish
recipient email. With attac
Postfix version 2.5.6 being used as a relay for chatty internal processes.
Suddenly, one of them is complaining of this error, in the midst of a 250 ish
recipient email. With attachment of some size.
". . .postfix/smtpd[15953]: NOQUEUE: reject: MAIL from unknown[192.168.aa.bb]:
452 4.3.1
On 1/21/2015 at 10:37 PM, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:08:19PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
This appeared to work fine and does, for most messages. However,
our org often sends an email to thousands of users with in our
system
a.
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org 01/22/15 9:59 AM
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:13:30AM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
While I agree Bcc is correct, I am having difficulty accepting,
logically, not in fact, that the forwarded message should fail.
After all, it is actually addressed
Daniel Miller dmil...@amfes.com 01/22/15 9:03 AM
On 1/22/2015 3:13 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate the reminder. The methodology is long standing
and should be altered. The users have only the tools offered to them.
However, not trying to be argumentative at all -
While I
Hope some find this amusing and not annoying. Perhaps someone know how to
approach this issue toward a resolution.
We have an in house commercial email system. Due to a re-organization, a
number of our users are now required to use an o365 account, yet must still
receive internal messages.
I confess to not having researched this, mainly as I have no clue how to search
the subject effectively. So, with great trepidation, I timidly squeak out this
question:
Using postfix, is it possible to force a re-addressing of an email based on
the sender of the message? To expand a bit, we
to allow messages to be sent via SMTP from the old system
to the new, in a controlled and highly restricted manner.
Having had some time to breath the free air again, I'm not so sure I
should be allowed out without my leash.
joe a.
Joe Acquisto-j4:
I confess to not having researched
Comments on the ZD net article that claims shellshock exploit via crafty SMTP
headers? Just asking, that's all . . .
I attached a link to it below, please excuse if that is improper behavior.
http://www.zdnet.com/shellshock-attacks-mail-servers-735094/
New to list, been using postfix for a little while.
I would like to point a postfix install to two outbound relay's (all outbound
mail to go thru them) so that, should one be unavailable, it will attempt to
send via the other. Not round robin but fail over.
This is probably simple, but have
Some mail from local (mynetworks) machines are getting mail rejected with
warning: Illegal address syntax from blah in MAIL command: a b c
This is despite resolve_numeric_domain = yes in main.cf, which I read was
supposed to fix bad from address from scripts, etc.
Wrong?
joe a.
ignore any
syntax problem in the from address of email, from local/trusted sources, as
this is likely to surface again as time goes on.
Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net 08/21/14 1:45 PM
Am 21.08.2014 um 19:32 schrieb Joe Acquisto-j4:
Some mail from
: A Web server
Script
That's all there is on that line. Thanks for the assistance.
joe a.
DTNX Postmaster postmas...@dtnx.net 08/21/14 1:52 PM
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:32, Joe Acquisto-j4 j...@j4computers.com wrote:
Some mail from local (mynetworks) machines are getting mail rejected with
warning
, as painless as possible.
Since we inflicted this burden on the apps community we were attempting to be as
fraternal as possible. Seems to require a certain masochism on our part. g
As you say, tho, there are limits.
joe a.
Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 08/21/14 2:36 PM
Joe Acquisto-j4
Dear postfix users,
Finally, I cut over my old server onto the replacement server. I
wonder if some of you would have a gander at these questions, and then
point me in the right direction?
Regards,s.
Broken Pipe (plumber wanted)
1)Just noticed this message in the logs just as a new
On 01/25/2011 03:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
J4:
Jan 25 13:54:20 logout postfix/smtpd[21183]: warning:
network_biopair_interop: error writing 53 bytes to the network: Broken pipe
The remote host disconnected before the Postfix SMTP server sent
its response. With Postfix 2.8 I removed
Hi there,
I set-up Postfix to enforce quotas using this in the main.cf:
postconf -n | grep virtual
virtual_alias_maps =
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/mysql_virtual_alias_maps.cf,
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/mysql_virtual_alias_domain_maps.cf,
On 01/19/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
Hi there,
I set-up Postfix to enforce quotas using this in the main.cf:
This is a patched, unsupported postfix.
Whose patch is it?
Hi Ralf,
This explains everything. I read in a guide that it would work
On 01/19/2011 02:20 PM, J4 wrote:
On 01/19/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
Hi there,
I set-up Postfix to enforce quotas using this in the main.cf:
This is a patched, unsupported postfix.
Whose patch is it?
Hi Ralf,
This explains everything. I read
On 01/19/2011 02:27 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
On 01/19/2011 02:04 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
Hi there,
I set-up Postfix to enforce quotas using this in the main.cf:
This is a patched, unsupported postfix.
Whose patch is it?
Hi Ralf
Dear knowledgeable ones,
I have just installed postfix and have some teething problems. This
message keeps being displayed:
Aug 13 15:41:20 p2aa-app046 postfix/master[4555]: warning: process
/usr/lib/postfix/smtp pid 5394 exit status 1
Aug 13 15:41:20 p2aa-app046 postfix/master[4555]:
On 08/13/2010 04:18 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
Dear knowledgeable ones,
I have just installed postfix and have some teething problems. This
message keeps being displayed:
Aug 13 15:41:20 p2aa-app046 postfix/master[4555]: warning: process
/usr/lib
On 08/13/2010 04:24 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* J4 ju...@klunky.co.uk:
Aug 13 16:20:07 pp24-app046 postfix/cleanup[6184]: warning: database
/etc/postfix/virtual.db is older than source file /etc/postfix/virtual
Aug 13 16:20:07 pp24-app046 postfix/trivial-rewrite[6185]: warning
67 matches
Mail list logo
