[pfx] Re: Bounces are disappearing

Nico Hoffmann via Postfix-users: >Jun 23 22:50:02 schubert postfix/qmgr[26673]: 60970354BC3: >from=, size=471, nrcpt=1 (queue active) This message was sent from x...@lewonzelewonze.de, therefore a non-delivery notification will be sent to that address. This is defined in the SMTP

[pfx] Bounces are disappearing

(I do no sender address rewriting for outgoing email). But if there are bounces because the email is rejected by the relay, (a typo in the domain of the recipient address, for example...) things get weird. See the log snipplet below. Apparently, postfix creates a non delivery notification

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:57:22AM +0100, Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users wrote: > Why my setup looks like this? mail-server1 servs a couple of other mail > domains, not only the one destined for the mailing lists. An access list > here would affect all domains, right? Only if the access

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

Dnia 27.03.2024 o godz. 11:57:22 Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users pisze: > True as well that mailman can restrict senders to list members only > but I have a couple of open lists that should be addressable by all > participating domains/company’s, no one else. If you have a list of domains

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

Hiya, thanks for your reply’s. My solution was as easy as adding the line “/^([<]+[>])$/ OK" to my access map. Changing smtpd_null_access_lookup_key didn’t seem to have any effect. Why my setup looks like this? mail-server1 servs a couple of other mail domains, not only the one destined for

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

Dnia 25.03.2024 o godz. 16:11:47 Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users pisze: > 2 postfix mail server, one, mail-server1, is connected to the > internet, the second, > calling it list-server1, which serves a few mailing lists, is only > reachable thru > mail-server1. > > On mail-server1 a

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

dge relay (server1), not the downstream list server. > ... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to > prevent loops, get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will > ever notice if there are dead emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce > handl

[pfx] Re: strict access restrictions and bounces

thing 8< All fine so far, but... ... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to prevent loops, get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will ever notice if there are dead emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce handling (I am using mailman3 on list-server

[pfx] strict access restrictions and bounces

fine so far, but... ... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to prevent loops, get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will ever notice if there are dead emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce handling (I am using mailman3 on list-server1) will never do anything. -

[pfx] Re: rbl bounces email that has both rbl_override and client_checks whitelisting

On 2024-02-27 at 16:39:54 UTC-0500 (Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:39:54 -0800 (PST)) lists--- via Postfix-users is rumored to have said: I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org website. Is that a deprecated parameter? The names of Postfix map files are up to you. Their

[pfx] Re: rbl bounces email that has both rbl_override and client_checks whitelisting

Wietse: > Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with > check_CLIENT_access. lists--- via Postfix-users: > Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks? What do you want to not block: the sender email domain? Then use check_sender_access (note that is

[pfx] Re: rbl bounces email that has both rbl_override and client_checks whitelisting

Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks? It looks like sender_access with an OK since it acts on the FROK field. https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org website. Is that a deprecated parameter? Feb 27, 2024

[pfx] Re: rbl bounces email that has both rbl_override and client_checks whitelisting

Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with check_CLIENT_access. Wietse ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org

[pfx] rbl bounces email that has both rbl_override and client_checks whitelisting

I still have that problem with the sender that used a spammy microsoft server that gets rejected by IP for using spamcop. I put the domain in the client_checks file but the sender gets bounced. postconf mail_version mail_version = 3.8.1 compatibility_level = 2 The client_checks line was

Bounces from gmail

Amateur mail-admin here (I know, don't do that) . I have a redirect to gmail set up for two users, and at times this happens: 1) The relayhost ("smarthost") I use, my internet provider, will accept the mail for gmail. 2) Gmail rejects the mail as spam. 3) Relayhost bounces mail

Re: How to allow bounces to authenticaded users

eferred (450) and not bounced > back to the sender. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I can > make sure that I don't bounce incoming mail, I should be OK. You are not supposed to accept and deliver mail for a remote recipient domain (whether it exists or not) from unauthenticated clients or

Re: How to allow bounces to authenticaded users

my > liking, with spam-filters, hand-off to mailman, dkim-signing and > whatnot. One problem is that mis-typed outgoing addresses (host part) > from my local, authenticated users end up deferred (450) and not bounced > back to the sender. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I

How to allow bounces to authenticaded users

. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I can make sure that I don't bounce incoming mail, I should be OK. Long story short, If in a specific postfix instance I am SURE I'm only handling mail submitted by authenticated users, I should be OK to change unknown_address_reject_code to 550 ? I

Re: Reject bounces

George: > Hi, > > I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and gets > back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and causing > additional load. > > Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any type of bounce > th

Re: Reject bounces

On 15.09.2017 17:00, "George" wrote: > I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and > gets back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and > causing additional load. > > Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any t

Re: Reject bounces

George skrev den 2017-09-15 17:00: I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and gets back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and causing additional load. if i know my book right, you send mail to a host that accept and bounce where thay should have

Reject bounces

Hi, I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and gets back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and causing additional load. Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any type of bounce that gets sent to the mail server? Please let me know.

Re: Getting bounces from only one server

bounce information polling via POP3 ONLY one location So my need is to get the bounces only via server1. Is there a way to accomplish this? Somewhat like a DSN relay?

Getting bounces from only one server

both of them - the application server is capable of getting bounce information polling via POP3 ONLY one location So my need is to get the bounces only via server1. Is there a way to accomplish this? Somewhat like a DSN relay? I am open for suggestions... I am already thinking about migrating

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 29 Jun 2016, at 11:45, Chip wrote: I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. True, unless you accept Michael Wise's generous functional definition. I'm on the fence there, as I've held job titles calling me an engineer but

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: > >>> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: >>> > I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. > > Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: > > AND NOW I'M CURIOUS... What kinds of backgrounds and roles do people here > have? Is managing a postfix installation part of your official duties, or > something that you've fallen into? CS degree from

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. In that you are mistaken. Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer.

Re: (Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote: > >>> I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. >>> >>> Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. >> In that you are mistaken. >> >> Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer. >> Please re-read that line.

(Off-topic: who's on the list) was: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

ers, but it is best described as a, "Virtual Header". Some other headers inserted by arbitrary third parties are not documented in *ANY* RFC anywhere, and almost everyone completely ignores them. Such is the case with, "bounces-to". It's not a standard. Almost everything will i

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

* RFC anywhere, and almost everyone completely ignores them. Such is the case with, "bounces-to". It's not a standard. Almost everything will ignore it. People who expect it to always work should be prepared for disappointment. Aloha mai Nai`a. -- " So this is how Liberty dies ... http://kapu.net/~mjwise/ " To Thunderous Applause.

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I will read up on it. Thank you for the link. Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer. So it would have been easier to understand if the response had been along the lines of: "envelope-from" instead of just FROM since there are a number of Froms in the source code.

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 29/06/16 17:02, Chip wrote: > If Return-path is added by receiving MTA, as you say, below, and that it > contains the MAIL FROM, then why do I see the following in source code > of received message in which return-path does not match From? Could I respectfully suggest that you read up on the

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

elope from and header From are two different beast. Return-Path: is MAIL FROM/envelope from. From: lucky <lu...@restaurantloot.com> in your example is header from, witch is data and and not directly related to MAIL FROM/envelope from. On 06/29/2016 10:50 AM, Kris Deugau wrote: Chip wrote: My

Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

: <sears2.5...@envfrm.rsys2.com> From: "Sears" <se...@value.sears.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-Mozilla-Keys: Return-Path: <bar...@restaurantloot.com> From: lucky <lu...@restaurantloot.com> On 06/29/2016 10:50 AM, Kris Deugau wrote: Ch

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip wrote: > My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA (usually on final delivery) that contains the envelope sender (MAIL FROM) used by the sending system. > as in the following > snippet of campaign e

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/28/16 2:01 PM, Chip wrote: > My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" This is not a subtle difference. The Return-Path header gets added (or replaced, in the case it is already there) by the receiving MTA with the MAIL FROM address. It is placed the

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" as in the following snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha Stewart and Sears: From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:03 2016 X-Account-Key: account15 X-UIDL: UID1962-1324328699 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 000

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 20:26, Jeffs Chips <jeffsch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm just saying that ALL email campaign services allow and indeed suggest > users to identity a specific sole purpose email account in which to receive > bounces to eliminate spam and which almost

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I don't dispute any of what happens just saying that a company out there that advertises as their mission to eliminate spam and whom, they advertise, has access to 30 million MX records is sending bounces to the reply to or envelope sender whereas I'm just saying that ALL email campaign services

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 19:28, Chip <jeffsch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay maybe it's not in RFC's but I would it would be at least a > recommendation that bounces can be routed back to bounces-to rather than > reply-to. After all, why have the field at all if it's not u

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Mail-server refusals (as in NOQUEUE) are generated before the email body is received - and will also be sent to the envelope sender. On 28/06/16 18:51, Noel Jones wrote: > On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote: >> Meaning there are no standards for the way >> emailers should res

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Bounces go to the envelope sender, the address used in the SMTP MAIL FROM command. Not reply-to, nor bounces-to, nor any other address listed in a header. To control where bounces are returned, set the envelope sender. -- Noel Jones On 6/28/2016 1:28 PM, Chip wrote: > In standard em

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

In standard email campaign software like phplist, constantcontact, mailchimp all of those popular email campaign software many of which use Exim and are used literally by millions of email campaigners, the bounces-to is where bounces are expected to be returned so that they can be effectively

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote: > Meaning there are no standards for the way > emailers should respond to bounces? bounces always go to the envelope sender, regardless of any unrelated junk in the headers.

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip: > Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way > emailers should respond to bounces? According to RFC 5321, the definition of the Internet email protocol, an undeliverable email message is returned to its MAIL FROM address, and that return message is sent with th

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way emailers should respond to bounces? On 06/28/2016 12:54 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Chip: I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies

Re: Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

Chip: > I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone > on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies. > > If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email > security service) sends bounces to "reply-to&q

Is not honoring bounces-to violation of RFC?

I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies. If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to"

Bounces and dmarc reports

Hi, I've recently implemented dmarc on my system. I've implemented both rua and ruf reports. I'm trying to understand why my postfix queue is being inundated with undeliverable messages such as these: E45A5182C7E 2700 Wed Dec 23 11:11:52 postmas...@cheatcodes.com (connect to

blocking bounces from spam advice

I have a small Postfix installation with virtual domains that runs well, however, a user is complaining of being hit with flood of rejects from spam sent out from elsewhere as though from him, the rejects are coming back to him the user in question has been, by his former request, exempted from

Postfix bounces

mydomain and myhostname to be used in the bounce template and changing the template to MAILER-DAEMON@$myhostname would also simplify. Or having something like $bounce_from_address (default to MAILER-DAEMON@$myhostname ) it would be very nice. 2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I

Re: Postfix bounces

want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages and couldn't find a way to achieve that. I cannot use sender_dependent_default_transport_maps, because I only want to apply to messages generated by Postfix

Re: Postfix bounces

. 2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages and couldn't find a way to achieve that. There is no RFC that requires this. I am highly-suspicious when people want to handle NDRs differently

Re: Postfix bounces

-compliant configuration when YOU disable append_at_myorigin for local submission. Thanks for pointing out where the problem is. I have to maintain a quite complex setup and this was already set. Next time will also test on a Postfix instance with minimal changes. 2) I want to forward bounces

Re: Postfix bounces

Am 03.12.2014 um 14:32 schrieb Jose Borges Ferreira: 2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages and couldn't find a way to achieve that. There is no RFC that requires this. I am highly-suspicious

Re: Postfix bounces

Jose Borges Ferreira: This is the scenario. Box 1 : just receive email from outside - inbound flow. Box 2 : used to sent email to the outside - oubound flow. Inbound MTA: primary MX for your domain(s). If mail can't be delivered, use Postfix's relayhost feature to deliver outbound mail via the

Re: Postfix bounces

to apply the relayhost behavior to server generated messages (bounces). Outbound MTA: if mail can't be delivered, use standard MX logic to deliver NDRs to the sender's MX host(s). That's was already covered, because email loops back through the InboundMTA Thanks. José Borges Ferreira

Re: Postfix bounces

Jose Borges Ferreira: On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Jose Borges Ferreira: This is the scenario. Box 1 : just receive email from outside - inbound flow. Box 2 : used to sent email to the outside - oubound flow. Inbound MTA: primary MX for

Re: Postfix bounces

Wietse Venema: Jose Borges Ferreira: On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Jose Borges Ferreira: This is the scenario. Box 1 : just receive email from outside - inbound flow. Box 2 : used to sent email to the outside - oubound flow. Inbound

Documentation update: Milter signing bounces

I have added this text at the end of Non-SMTPD Milter applications: Wietse Signing internally-generated bounce messages Postfix normally does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster

Re: Documentation update: Milter signing bounces

internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. Filtering internally-generated bounces could result in loss of mail when a filter rejects or defers a message (the resulting double-bounce message would almost certainly also be blocked). To sign

Milter signing bounces

documentation that support that claim, in particular see point 4 on http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html#limitations; that states: Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces

Re: Milter signing bounces

Jose Borges Ferreira: What's wrong ? The documentation or the internal_mail_filter_classes/non_smtpd_milters implementation that allows applying a signing Milter to bounces ? You appear to believe that there is a difference between Postfix documentation and Postfix implementation. Can you

Re: Milter signing bounces

pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote: Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a problem when you want to apply a signing Milter

Re: Milter signing bounces

the relevant parts. I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote: Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a problem when you

Re: Milter signing bounces

the other lists for full context and quoted the relevant parts. I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote: Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications

Re: Milter signing bounces

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:30 PM, li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote: I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote: Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces

Re: Milter signing bounces

don't get me wrong but Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a problem when you want to apply a signing Milter to such mail claims

Re: Milter signing bounces

Am 28.11.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Wietse Venema: don't get me wrong but Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a problem when you want

Strip body / attachments from bounces?

I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I didn't see anything in it about making sure the bounce contains nothing but the bounce

Re: Strip body / attachments from bounces?

On 11/25/2014 10:51 AM, John Oliver wrote: I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I didn't see anything in it about making

Re: Strip body / attachments from bounces?

Am 25.11.2014 um 17:51 schrieb John Oliver: I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I didn't see anything in it about making

Re: Strip body / attachments from bounces?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit You can set bounce_size_limit = 0 to return the message headers only. The minimum allowed value is 1. Therefore, to bounce headers only bounce_size_limit = 1 --

Re: Strip body / attachments from bounces?

bounce_size_limit = 1 As a general rule, where Postfix accepts a limit of zero, it means disable the no limit. Unlimited bounces are not a good idea. That's why the minimum is 1. Wietse

Re: Strip body / attachments from bounces?

On 11/25/2014 1:34 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit You can set bounce_size_limit = 0 to return the message headers only. The minimum allowed value is 1. Therefore, to bounce

Re: Email-get-bounces.

Am 20.11.2014 um 06:55 schrieb Mohammed Ejaz: Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would be highly appreciated. *1.**I have several entries as below for our one of the customer whose relaying his email through our mail servers* Nov 20 07:41:05 mersal

Re: Email-get-bounces.

On 11/19/2014 11:55 PM, Mohammed Ejaz wrote: hello, Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would be highly appreciated. *1. **I have several entries as below for our one of the customer whose relaying his email through our mail servers*

Email-get-bounces.

hello, Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would be highly appreciated. 1. I have several entries as below for our one of the customer whose relaying his email through our mail servers Nov 20 07:41:05 mersal postfix/smtpd[30971]: warning:

Re: HTML bounces

Am 17.10.2014 um 07:49 schrieb Andre Rodier: I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them. I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send beautiful bounces messages (internally

Re: HTML bounces

Andre Rodier: Hi, I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them. I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send beautiful bounces messages (internally) but continue to send

Re: HTML bounces

On 17 Oct 2014, at 04:51 , Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: The harder you try, the fewer people will read your bounce message. Honestly, I do not think it is possible for there to be fewer people who read bounces. Customized LOCAL bounce messages would be nifty. I don't want HTML

Re: HTML bounces

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:49:15 -0600 LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote: On 17 Oct 2014, at 04:51 , Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: The harder you try, the fewer people will read your bounce message. Honestly, I do not think it is possible for there to be fewer people who read bounces

Re: HTML bounces

for there to be fewer people who read bounces. Customized LOCAL bounce messages would be nifty. I don't want HTML ones but customizing the messages for local users would be nice. Some extensibility to the variables available might be nice too, to allow more customizations to the bounce message

Re: HTML bounces

to use HTML messages to send beautiful bounces messages (internally) but continue to send standard text format externally. Text msgs is beautiful, no ? I already configured my bounce_template_file, but it only allows me to do it as text. You can show a link in bounce to bugzilla on own domain

HTML bounces

Hi, I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them. I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send beautiful bounces messages (internally) but continue to send standard text

Bounces are not sent sometimes.

Hello list! I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender. *Here is the log when it fails:* Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388: from=custo...@domain1.tld, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/smtp[8391]: 575C227A388:

Re: Bounces are not sent sometimes.

Patrik B?t: I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender. *Here is the log when it fails:* Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388: from=custo...@domain1.tld, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/smtp[8391]:

Re: Bounces are not sent sometimes.

Wietse Venema: Patrik B?t: I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender. *Here is the log when it fails:* Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388: from=custo...@domain1.tld, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9

Re: Bounces are not sent sometimes.

Wietse Venema: Wietse Venema: Patrik B?t: I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender. *Here is the log when it fails:* Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388: from=custo...@domain1.tld, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jul 2

Re: Bounces are not sent sometimes.

On tor 3 jul 2014 13:10:04, Wietse Venema wrote: Wietse Venema: Wietse Venema: Patrik B?t: I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender. *Here is the log when it fails:* Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388: from=custo...@domain1.tld,

How do I get Postfix to tell me when a message bounces and who sent it

or something??). When the number of such messages from a specific user reaches a certain threshold, I want to be able to block that user from sending outgoing messages. This latter part is simple enough but getting the bounces information in a way I can read it programmatically has got me

Re: How do I get Postfix to tell me when a message bounces and who sent it

, mailbox_command_maps, and pipe(8) commands driven by a transport table. When the number of such messages from a specific user reaches a certain threshold, I want to be able to block that user from sending outgoing messages. This latter part is simple enough but getting the bounces information in a way I can

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

explain why bounces are not working. Telnet encode tests on port 10001 work fine. * When the -I switch IS present, it does not deliver mail. However, it passes both telnet encode/decode tests. Here is the delivery problem I see in the logs: Feb 3 16:31:00 quimby0 postfix/smtpd[32357

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

On 2/4/2014 2:06 AM, Jason Woods wrote: Hi Michael, This looks like one of my patches broke the TCP table when using -I... :-) It should be 500 not 400 it seems. Fruneau will be pleased ^^ I've pushed a fix to my own fork which I'll pull to Fruneau soon - its identical to Fruneau's except for

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

On 4 Feb 2014, at 18.51, Michael McCallister mikemc-post...@terabytemedia.com wrote: Thanks again Jason. Everything works now. I stumbled across the space in the secrets file problem last night and that got hashes validating - but thanks for that insight too. I am running your updated

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

On 2/4/2014 2:42 PM, Jason Woods wrote: No problem! Can you describe the issue with the space you encountered? Or steps to reproduce? I'll throw a fix over to Fruneau before I start working more on srs-milter. I originally had one line in the secrets file that was probably 200-300 chars.

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

On 2/2/2014 11:47 PM, Jason Woods wrote: Hi Michael, I did some tweaks on pfixtools I will have to have a look and check for you (I use it too.) It's not the ideal method though and a milter is really the correct way to do SRS as the canonical filters, although giving almost desired effect,

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

Hi Michael, It all looks fine config wise. But seems the bounce, although going through cleanup according to log, isn't rewriting. All I can suggest is to check there's no conflicting config elsewhere regarding canonical etc. such as master.cf overriding it etc. And maybe test the decoding by

Re: SRS bounces not working in postfix

usage in all examples). However, when I try to decode in this mode I get 500 Hash invalid in SRS address. when testing in telnet - which could explain why bounces are not working. Telnet encode tests on port 10001 work fine. * When the -I switch IS present, it does not deliver mail

  1   2   3   4   >