Hi all,
I'm facing a stupid situation and I'm looking for advises. I'm using a
postfix relay to filter viruses and spams. All is working well except
with spam that use the same declared address for both sender and
recipient. What happened in this particular situation is described as
follow:
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectively make yourself a spam source. It's even worse when you attach
the original message.
hth,
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectively make yourself a spam
On 18/06/2010 10:17, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
Le 18/06/2010 11:28, Mark Goodge a écrit :
On 18/06/2010 10:17, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications
but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify
On 18/06/2010 11:36, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Hi all,
I'm facing a stupid situation and I'm looking for advises. I'm using a
postfix relay to filter viruses and spams. All is working well except
with spam that use the same declared address for both sender and
recipient. What happened in this
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectively make yourself a spam source. It's even worse when you attach
Le 18/06/2010 11:42, Erik Logtenberg a écrit :
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
I'm not a great fan of quarantining, although it works fairly well
for webmail systems where the quarantine can be accessed through the
same interface as the inbox (eg, Gmail and Hotmail). It's less
helpful where mail is delivered to a POP3 or IMAP box as users have
to go to a separate
Good Morning,
Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
non-existent user, the mailer-daemon response to the sender is:
b...@example.com:
Le 18/06/2010 11:51, Reko Turja a écrit :
I'm not a great fan of quarantining, although it works fairly well
for webmail systems where the quarantine can be accessed through the
same interface as the inbox (eg, Gmail and Hotmail). It's less
helpful where mail is delivered to a POP3 or IMAP box
Adam:
Good Morning,
Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
non-existent user, the mailer-daemon response to the sender is:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
It could be good to have a switch to
Carlos Velasco:
I think this is a mistake, in the sense that it is a crude work-around.
The right solution is keep the inet_interfaces settings of Postfix
instances *disjoint*, and to never forward mail to port 25 *within*
an instance. This keeps things clear and predictable.
-
Wietse:
Thank you for the reply. Rest assured this was specifically for SASL
authenticated users. Non-authenticated users would have had an
unknown recipient rejected by the policy service.
I solved the issue by setting up virtual_mailbox_maps. My primary
reason for wanting to avoid that was
Work WITH the system, or else stop complaining.
Wietse
I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
I am fine with the workarounds
Mark Goodge put forth on 6/18/2010 4:28 AM:
1. Just discard spam.
By this I hope you mean rejecting the message at SMTP time, not accept and
move to /dev/null.
Regarding the OP's original issue, im my experience, nearly all spam that has
a 'from' address matching the local 'to' address is bot
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:17:40AM -0430, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
The plug-ins you speak of are a Debian-specific feature, they are not
part of the official Postfix release and not available on most platforms.
So most platforms statically link ldap support with postfix?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:01:14AM -0500, Adam wrote:
Good Morning,
Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
non-existent user, the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco cvela...@cnic.es wrote:
I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
I am fine with the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view,
although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see
that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between instances and I
have my view
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view,
although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see
that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between instances
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
I recommend a different myhostname per port 25
* Wietse Venema postfix-users@postfix.org:
Last weekend I talked with one of the creators of SQLite and was
impressed by the thoroughness of their code quality process.
I brushed up a patch that was circulated two years ago and spent
a day or so adding error checks and updating
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
I recommend a different
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally. That would allow us to avoid the problems with
Postfix's external
On 6/18/2010 12:07 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally. That would allow us to avoid
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally. That would allow us to avoid the problems with
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Indeed. One still needs tools to insert data into the database.
Does Postfix need to provide a minimal interface for this, or do we
assume that SQLite users will have adequate tools outside Postfix.
It wouldn't hurt to omit this support for the time
* Wietse Venema postfix-users@postfix.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally.
* Patrick Ben Koetter p...@state-of-mind.de:
A postmap option to create an SQLite file would make sense.
Do you mean creating an SQLite database from a flat file that, for example,
contains access rules mapping addresses to actions (r...@foo REJECT)?
What if there were many files that
Rob Foehl:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Indeed. One still needs tools to insert data into the database.
Does Postfix need to provide a minimal interface for this, or do we
assume that SQLite users will have adequate tools outside Postfix.
It wouldn't hurt to omit this
I *never* said it was easy. I only said it should be possible on most
platforms. Also, I never said it was even necessary.
Thanks for the tech discussion, I even feel my neurons getting out of
lethargy! :)
On Jun 18, 2010 9:47 AM, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On
Patrick Ben Koetter:
* Wietse Venema postfix-users@postfix.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite
Hi,
I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
messages to the overquota account at that point. I could do this by
Guy:
Hi,
I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
messages to the overquota account at that point. I could do
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0100, Guy wrote:
Hi,
I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
messages to
On 06/14/2010 11:54 AM, Florin Andrei wrote:
Well, that does it. I got RPM packages with 2.7 from two different
sources. Time for testing, then upgrade, and I'll keep y'all posted with
the results.
And here it is, the status update.
I got the 2.7.0 src.rpm packages made by Simon J Mudd
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:05:36PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
main.cf:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 2
fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 1
fragile_destination_rate_delay = 2s
Try:
# Change from 1 above
Hi
I have the following setup:
new postfixserver: sandmann.biz
legacy email system: kosmann.net (I am not root here.)
one email each: oli...@sandmann.biz
oli...@kosmann.net
normally every mail going to the old oli...@kosmann.net is
copy-forwarded to the new mail
Our MX currently relays to one of two boxes (mail1, mail2) based on a
list of domains in transport_maps. Both mail1 and mail2 are ours, and we
have a full list of domains and recipients in relay_domains and
relay_recipient maps respectively.
Now, I would like to add a third, external, relay
oliver sandmann:
Hi
I have the following setup:
new postfixserver: sandmann.biz
legacy email system: kosmann.net (I am not root here.)
one email each: oli...@sandmann.biz
oli...@kosmann.net
normally every mail going to the old oli...@kosmann.net is
copy-forwarded to
42 matches
Mail list logo
