Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|>Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-08-05 11:57:
|>>So, even setting DMARC policy to "quarantine" or "reject" would not
|>>cause problems.
|
|On 05.08.24 12:14, Benny Pedersen vi
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-08-05 11:57:
So, even setting DMARC policy to "quarantine" or "reject" would not
cause problems.
On 05.08.24 12:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
i want to belive when ... if all dmarc policy is allowed wha
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-08-05 11:57:
So, even setting DMARC policy to "quarantine" or "reject" would not
cause problems.
i want to belive when ... if all dmarc policy is allowed what should
happens on the time when subscribers got th
On Jul 31, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
wrote:
FYI Mailman 2 claims to rewrite From: header to fullfill DMARC requirements only when DMARC policy
is "quarantine" or "reject"
On 01.08.24 12:12, Robert L Mathews via Postfix-use
Robert L Mathews via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|On Jul 31, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users \
| wrote:
|> FYI Mailman 2 claims to rewrite From: header to fullfill DMARC requireme\
|> nts only when DMARC policy is "quarantine" or "re
On Jul 31, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
wrote:
>
> FYI Mailman 2 claims to rewrite From: header to fullfill DMARC requirements
> only when DMARC policy is "quarantine" or "reject"
That's the "dmarc_moderation_action&quo
On 30.07.24 16:40, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
Thanks for all the replies on this - food for thought! Seems the general
consensus is that while in theory I should reject for p=reject (since
that's what the sender wants me to do), in practice things like mailing
lists and other forwa
y based on the performance of the RBLs. I don’t reject
> based on SPF, DMARC, or DKIM.
>
> However i do have spam detection powered by RSPAMD, which takes into
> account SPF,DKIM,DMARC and host of other stuff. right now experimenting
> with LLMs as tool to detect SPAM apart from the
yday based on the performance of the RBLs. I don’t reject
> > based on SPF, DMARC, or DKIM.
> >
> > However i do have spam detection powered by RSPAMD, which takes into
> > account SPF,DKIM,DMARC and host of other stuff. right now experimenting
> > with LLMs as tool t
everyday based on the performance of the RBLs. I don’t reject
based on SPF, DMARC, or DKIM.
However i do have spam detection powered by RSPAMD, which takes into
account SPF,DKIM,DMARC and host of other stuff. right now experimenting
with LLMs as tool to detect SPAM apart from the standard baye’s
Thanks for all the replies on this - food for thought! Seems the general
consensus is that while in theory I should reject for p=reject (since
that's what the sender wants me to do), in practice things like mailing
lists and other forwarding conditions make that unsafe (and to a lesser
exten
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:23:28AM +0100, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > What do others do with DMARC? I'm inclined to just gradually turn up the SA
> > scores on SPF/DKIM failures instead, if only because
> > Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC isn't i
In POSTSCREEN i use 12 blocklists and whitelists. each is given a
particular score based on a custom ML algorithm. The scores get adjusted
everyday based on the performance of the RBLs. I don’t reject based on
SPF, DMARC, or DKIM.
However i do have spam detection powered by RSPAMD, which
On 2024-07-30 at 05:23:28 UTC-0400 (Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:23:28 +0100)
Gilgongo via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I've recently installed and configured openDMARC. I see it marks
perhaps
20-30% of domains as "fail" but I've not set it to reject those yet.
I a
d zen for years (sbl-xml + pbl) and
safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net (dul + others).
I also use dnswl with negative score (postscreen) and on some servers I need
more than one hit to reject mail, so one listing is not enough for
rejection.
Of course I always have the option to manually override DNSBL list
Dnia 30.07.2024 o godz. 12:38:15 Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users pisze:
> >I filter messages only based on RBLs, manual blocklists and content
> >filtering (SA + many custom rules). And as for the latter, the messages are
> >sent to spam folder, never rejected. Rejections are based only on
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:23:28AM +0100, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
> What do others do with DMARC? I'm inclined to just gradually turn up the SA
> scores on SPF/DKIM failures instead, if only because
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC isn't included in SA by default - and
> presumably f
r a reason.
So far I only reject based on SPF.
I was thinking about rejecting DMARC failures with policy reject, but not
yet.
On 30.07.24 12:06, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
I don't check neither SPF, DKIM nor DMARC on incoming mail and don't plan
to. I use it only for ou
Dnia 30.07.2024 o godz. 10:23:28 Gilgongo via Postfix-users pisze:
> What do others do with DMARC? I'm inclined to just gradually turn up the SA
> scores on SPF/DKIM failures instead, if only because
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC isn't included in SA by default - and
> presumably for a reaso
On 2024-07-30 17:23, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
I've recently installed and configured openDMARC. I see it marks
perhaps
20-30% of domains as "fail" but I've not set it to reject those yet.
In our dmarc setup, we will reject the message if it fails (p=reject and
d
For some mailing lists you have to be lax on DMARC failures because they
overwrite email body and aren't rewriting header From.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
I've recently installed and configured openDMARC. I see it marks perhaps
20-30% of domains as "fail" but I've not set it to reject those yet.
I also see Spamassassin doesn't give particularly high scores for SPF/DKIM
failures, and Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC (not
that's the nice solution. thanks.
>
> Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> >
> >
> > I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
> >
> > How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domai
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
> Hello
>
> I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
> How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domain in sender?
> I know I can setup sieve script to discard messages from that
> domain, but this method sounds rather rigi
Hello
I have basic postfix/dovecot installation.
How can I setup postfix or dovecot to reject the specified domain in sender?
I know I can setup sieve script to discard messages from that domain, but this
method sounds rather rigid.
Or shall I install rspamd etc to make a reject policy for that
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 01:02:36PM -0400, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> > will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
> An option is to have noreply@ delivered to /dev/null. I
. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
An option is to have noreply@ delivered to /dev/null. It's valid and a trash
can.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an ema
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 09:08:39 Bastian Blank via Postfix-users pisze:
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
Sender callout is discouraged now, because it is considered aggressive
be
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 08:51:33 Alexander Leidinger via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> This implies that the organization / company is willing to spend
> money on having someone available to actually respond / provide
> support. For a lot of the use cases I would say even a mail to
> ticket system gate
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting.
"Proper" is for the recipients of your messages to be able to use the
reply function in their MUA, to ask for clarification/assistance in
regards to the
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
On 20.06.24 11:22, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never
>
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
>
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never receiveread any messages. Is an
automate
ndle than an automatic
> response. IMHO.
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
Bastian
--
Witch! Witch! They'll burn ya!
-- Hag, "Tomorrow is Yes
Am 2024-06-20 08:21, schrieb Peter via Postfix-users:
On 20/06/24 17:47, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
So many replies!
@Ralph
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any
way, rejecting the
automatic response. IMHO.
A better way would be to set the From: address to someone that will
actually respond from your organization (e.g. info@, help@, etc).
@Peter
My /etc/postfix/no-reply_reject contains lines like:
do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
reply to
than an automatic
> response. IMHO.
>
> @Peter
> My /etc/postfix/no-reply_reject contains lines like:
> do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
> reply to this email.
>
> Regards
>
___
Postfix-users
contains lines like:
do-not-re...@domain.tld REJECT This mailbox is not attended/read. Do not
reply to this email.
Regards
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On 20/06/24 04:35, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
It appears that Peter via Postfix-users said:
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users:
> * Ansgar Wiechers via Postfix-users:
>
> > [...]
>
> Did I ever send mail to you using the mailing list address you got
> barred from targeting, or send mail to you at all from my servers? No,
> I did not.
>
> You tried to initiate communication by sending mai
* Ansgar Wiechers via Postfix-users:
> [...]
Did I ever send mail to you using the mailing list address you got
barred from targeting, or send mail to you at all from my servers? No,
I did not.
You tried to initiate communication by sending mail to an address you
had no reason to contact, this b
It appears that Peter via Postfix-users said:
>On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> *Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
>
>There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is no part of the
>e
On 2024-06-19 Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
> * Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users:
>
> > From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
> > Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
>
> Dang, blindsided by Mailman 3, sorry. What I wrote about my dislike of
> using "nore...@foo.bar" type addresses remains unchan
* Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users:
> From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
> Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
Dang, blindsided by Mailman 3, sorry. What I wrote about my dislike of
using "nore...@foo.bar" type addresses remains unchanged, however. If
sender A sends mail to recipient B, A needs to be p
Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users:
[reply-to header]
> He didn't do it - it's being added by Mailman. Whether by default or
> deliberately I do not know.
This is damage control for DMARC. The mailing list address goes in
the From: header, and the poster's email address goes in Reply-To:
so that l
On 19/06/2024 18:19, Bjoern Franke via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public mailing list.
Like you did yourself?
From: Ralph
Hi,
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public mailing list.
Like you did yourself?
From: Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
Reply-To: Ralph Seichter
Regard
On 19/06/24 18:51, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
There is no such thing as a no-reply email, there is no part of the
email specification that allows a message to be marked as unable to be
replied to. Many
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply
> email.
Personally, I find this type of one-way communication annoying and
impolite. The same goes for setting Reply-To to your personal email
address after asking for help on a public m
Hi
*Trying to setup email REJECT when users try to send to a no-reply email.*
AFAIK, this should be configuren on smtpd_recipient_restrictions using
check_recipient_access. Please, let me know if I'm wrong.
It's not working, so maybe it's because I don't know if rules are ap
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 01:41:44PM -0400, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> Turns out it's more complicated than I thought, they want a restricted
> sending address to be able to send only to particular recipients.
> Suggestions?
If the allowed recipients are the same for all restricted send
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/restricted_senders
smtpd_restriction_classes = joe_user_acl
joe_user_acl =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/joe_user_recipients, reject
/etc/postfix/restricted_senders
It appears that Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
said:
If one of recipients wants to accept mail from a sender while another
recipient doesn't, teoretically you can reject that sender at recipient
level, but that complicates configuration (but it's possible).
This would mea
It appears that Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
said:
>If one of recipients wants to accept mail from a sender while another
>recipient doesn't, teoretically you can reject that sender at recipient
>level, but that complicates configuration (but it's possible).
&g
On 6/16/2024 9:06 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
# Don't indent text between IF and ENDIF.
IF /^MAIL FROM:/
/^MAIL FROM:/ QUIT
/^MAIL FROM:/ QUIT
...
ENDIF
Seems like if this is talking to a real MTA this would be a
connection amplifier. The sending MTA would see this as a non-fa
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:06:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > > > I think postscreen can block them easily.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the postscreen man
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:06:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > > I think postscreen can block them easily.
> >
> > I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
> > add
John R. Levine via Postfix-users:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
> > I think postscreen can block them easily.
>
> I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
> addresses. Am I missing something?
That is a bad suggestion, please ignore.
> I do see smtpd_
John R. Levine via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-16 15:18:
I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about
mail addresses. Am I missing something?
postscreen is not smtpd
I do see smtpd_command_filter. How about if I map MAIL FROM:
to QUIT?
so this needs smtpd
mi
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Jeff Peng wrote:
I think postscreen can block them easily.
I'm looking at the postscreen man page and I don't see anything about mail
addresses. Am I missing something?
I do see smtpd_command_filter. How about if I map MAIL FROM: to QUIT?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@t
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 07:06:43PM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-06-15 18:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> > People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
> > don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd
On 15.06.24 12:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the
On 2024-06-15 18:14, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:14:01PM +0200, John Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
> People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
> don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
> as possible without running it through anti-
People I'm working with have a short list of addresses from which they
don't want to accept mail at all, and they'd like to reject as early
as possible without running it through anti-spam milters, ideally by
rejecting the SMTP MAIL FROM command. What's the best way to do thi
On 5/28/24 5:39 AM, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote:
smtpd_delay_reject to no
I had it at yes.
Changed it.
--john
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
On 28/05/2024 11:39, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users
wrote:
For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding
other other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic
ip ranges from whic
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding other
other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic ip ranges from
which you would normally expect to get connections t
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:57 AM John Fawcett via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> For submission I only use xbl (return code 127.0.0.4) excluding other
> other data contained in zen like pbl that lists isp dynamic ip ranges from
> which you would normally expect to get connectio
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block xbl
On 27/05/2024 13:31, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
On 5/27/24 4:13 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
On 5/27/24 4:13 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
John Hill via Postfix-users:
Is this the same thing?
On 25.05.24 15:54, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block x
On 25/05/2024 20:50, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
On 5/25/24 11:22 AM, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did no
On 5/25/24 3:54 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
John Hill via Postfix-users:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
Is this the same thing?
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block xbl
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> > postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.[2..11]
> Is this the same thing?
See https://www.spamhaus.org/faqs/dnsbl-usage/#200 for a table
with the purpose of different lookup results.
To block xbl listed clients with postscreen, one would configure
xbl.sp
On 5/25/24 11:22 AM, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port
587, for users acces
On 24/05/2024 03:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up
with the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
for users access.
I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587. F
On 5/24/24 9:33 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 24.05.24 07:36, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
What command do you use to reset the connection?
no command, just rule in OUTPUT chain:
1710 649K REJECT 6 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0
0.0.0.0/0
On 24.05.24 07:36, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
What command do you use to reset the connection?
no command, just rule in OUTPUT chain:
1710 649K REJECT 6-- * * 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0
tcp spt:25 match-set block-smtp dst reject-with icmp-port
What command do you use to reset the connection?
On 5/24/24 6:18 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
On 23.05.24 21:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I use Fail2Ban to block the failed IP. The script writes it into the
nftables table immediately.
I think this keeps Postfi
On 23.05.24 21:03, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
I use Fail2Ban to block the failed IP. The script writes it into the
nftables table immediately.
I think this keeps Postfix waiting and times out, not a big deal. Is
there a cli that my bash script could force disconnect the ip from
Postfi
Will do it. Tonight.
Thanks
On May 23, 2024 9:11 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
> the conversation!
>
> I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 5
John Hill via Postfix-users:
> I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
> the conversation!
>
> I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
> for users access.
>
> I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587. Funny how a China,
I learn something every time I read this group, when I can keep up with
the conversation!
I had auth on ports I did not need. I use auth on submission port 587,
for users access.
I do get a boat load of failed login attempts on 587. Funny how a China,
US, Argentina, you name it, hosts, will
Dnia 4.02.2024 o godz. 11:00:39 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> > Well, I'm an old school type... :) I prefer to ssh to the server and launch
> > mutt or something similar to access my mail :)
>
> That's fine, I also use mutt (in fact when replying to this message),
> but for me mutt i
On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 10:17:45PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> >
> > These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store that
> > is not tied directly to any login account they may or m
Hellow Jaroslaw,
On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 22:17 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> pisze:
> >
> > These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store
> > that
> > is not tied directly to any login accou
Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 12:59:27 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> These days, users are far better off with delivery to an IMAP store that
> is not tied directly to any login account they may or may not have.
> Perhaps they authenticate to Dovecot via PAM, but the mail store should
> o
On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 04:57:05PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> > The "local" transport is a legacy Sendmail-compatibilty interface,
> > and should generally be avoided.
>
> Why avoided? If you have local Unix users on your server, and you want those
> users to receive mail, th
n no case should anything on the outside be directing mail directly to
> zimbra.example.org, and it is firewalled so only our border MXes can talk to
> it.
>
> Is there a way to reject mail destined to an internal domain (like
> zimbra.example.org) such that only our internal machines c
Dnia 3.02.2024 o godz. 10:33:58 Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users pisze:
> The "local" transport is a legacy Sendmail-compatibilty interface,
> and should generally be avoided.
Why avoided? If you have local Unix users on your server, and you want those
users to receive mail, this is the most eas
xample.org route to
> zimbra.example.org). We have other domains under example.org such as
> list servers, ticket systems, and the like, many of which have
> example.org addresses pointing at them.
>
> Is there a way to reject mail destined to an internal domain (like
> zimbra.example.org) suc
rg such as list servers, ticket systems, and the like, many of
which have example.org addresses pointing at them.
In no case should anything on the outside be directing mail directly to
zimbra.example.org, and it is firewalled so only our border MXes can talk to it.
Is there a way to reject mai
Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users:
> Hi Jaroslaw,
>
> In this context, it's not about the ability to recognize the
> message, as unique IDs and postfix long queue IDs can handle that
> effectively within the 200-character limit. The primary concern
> is having the capability to log full header
ar 2024 10:01:49
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 23:21:10 Gerald Galster via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> As the amount of email increases it can be difficult to distinguish mails
> to or from a corr
Dnia 24.01.2024 o godz. 23:21:10 Gerald Galster via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> As the amount of email increases it can be difficult to distinguish mails
> to or from a correspondent. In this case it would help a lot to display
> the subject as well but that's not part of envelope data. Therefore it'
;
An: "postfix-users"
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Januar 2024 23:21:10
Betreff: [pfx] Re: Feature Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via
&g
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users :
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via
> Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> Using a Milter is an option, but it often involves correlating
>> information from both the milter process and the log for a
>> comprehensive view.
>
> Everyt
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:27:53PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Using a Milter is an option, but it often involves correlating
> information from both the milter process and the log for a
> comprehensive view.
Everything of interest can be added as a message header.
> Fo
Request: Adjustable Header Log Size Limit in
INFO/WARN/REJECT Header_Check
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:10:03PM +0100, Matthias Schneider via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Initially, I experimented with a Milter for logging the required
> headers, but I found that employing a larger %s printf value
1 - 100 of 1351 matches
Mail list logo
