Re: Debian package installation
Thanks Bob. I wasn't sure if Victor had a specific list in mind. It's not as if this is the first place I came. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote: Isaac Witmer wrote: Could you point me to the specific list you're referring to? A good catchall is debian-u...@lists.debian.org where general discussion takes place. Bob
Re: Debian package installation
I would like to apologize for hijacking this mailing list, I didn't realize it would be quite so off topic. I was having trouble finding the answer in all the usual places. After almost writing a response, I've almost found the answer (haven't tested it yet) by searching for: postfix debconf-set-selections Good luck to others that need this. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru wrote: 06.07.2010 20:58, Phil Howard wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:27, Isaac Witmer isaa...@gmail.com wrote: I'm doing a custom install, and one of the packages in the install is postfix. Each time, it prompts me to select no configuration Local use etc. just after the package has been downloaded and right before it has been installed. (similar to the screen that shows up when you're asked to accept the sun-java6 license) I need a way to dodge it. Any ideas? The package comes with two or more pre-packaged configurations to make it ready to go. Why not just use no configuration and later apply your own configuration. If you are trying to bypass the interactiveness of it so you don't get stopped at that choice, maybe you need an expect script (I've used pexpect with Python for various things, and was thinking of using it for this, too). This is becoming more and more off-topic for Postfix mailing list... there's debconf-set-selections command in Debian that is especially designed to pre-set answers to dpkg questions for non-interactive installations. There's no need to re-invent the wheel, it is here for a long time already and is working quite well. What you need is to install a package(s) in question on a test system and look at the debconf items of your interest. The raw data is stored in /var/cache/debconf/config.dat. But again, this has nothing to do with postfix, it's 100% debian question. In particular, read about how to do some non-interactive package installs in this distribution. /mjt
Re: OT: ldap schema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/06/2010 11:22 PM, Fran Garcia wrote: Postfix has no preferred LDAP schemas, it operates at a higher level of abstraction, i.e. virtual_alias_maps, transport_maps, ... which can be implemented via LDAP if you so choose. The mapping between an actual LDAP dataset and the conceptual Postfix key/value table is up to you. Thanks for the links :-) . I already came across the postfix adapts to any ldap schema but, since I'm starting with ldap and not very familiar with all the concepts, I wanted to get some reall ife examples of actual schemas people are using. I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions for mail routing and is in use in several Universities and Higher Ed institutions: http://www.rediris.es/ldap/schema/iris.schema You can read use cases and some other information (in Spanish) here: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada - -- Victoriano Giralt Systems Manager Central ICT Services University of Malaga SPAIN -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFMNF62V6+mDjj1PTgRAsZ6AKC7Dt7H8T3rMH7eEkn3D54KdIxcBwCfQo5M wpUBksmO5zDSIIxK8V6XC68= =ZhKy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OT: ldap schema
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:02, Victoriano Giralt wrote: On 07/06/2010 11:22 PM, Fran Garcia wrote: Postfix has no preferred LDAP schemas, it operates at a higher level of abstraction, i.e. virtual_alias_maps, transport_maps, ... which can be implemented via LDAP if you so choose. The mapping between an actual LDAP dataset and the conceptual Postfix key/value table is up to you. Thanks for the links :-) . I already came across the postfix adapts to any ldap schema but, since I'm starting with ldap and not very familiar with all the concepts, I wanted to get some reall ife examples of actual schemas people are using. I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions for mail routing and is in use in several Universities and Higher Ed institutions: http://www.rediris.es/ldap/schema/iris.schema Ahh, excelente, gracias! . You can read use cases and some other information (in Spanish) here: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada I'm getting a Mediawiki internal error there, does it work for you? Cheers
Re: OT: ldap schema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2010 01:24 PM, Fran Garcia wrote: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada I'm getting a Mediawiki internal error there, does it work for you? Works for me right now (Wed Jul 7 13:29:29 CEST 2010) - -- Victoriano Giralt Systems Manager Central ICT Services University of Malaga SPAIN -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFMNGUoV6+mDjj1PTgRAgJSAJ9MGu+SGZ60FPngL4QhUTryhCK2fgCfezh+ WrdMX4iPbd4ZHQyZX9lvuyo= =J/3n -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OT: ldap schema
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:02:15 +0200 Victoriano Giralt victori...@uma.es articulated: On 07/06/2010 11:22 PM, Fran Garcia wrote: Postfix has no preferred LDAP schemas, it operates at a higher level of abstraction, i.e. virtual_alias_maps, transport_maps, ... which can be implemented via LDAP if you so choose. The mapping between an actual LDAP dataset and the conceptual Postfix key/value table is up to you. Thanks for the links :-) . I already came across the postfix adapts to any ldap schema but, since I'm starting with ldap and not very familiar with all the concepts, I wanted to get some reall ife examples of actual schemas people are using. I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions for mail routing and is in use in several Universities and Higher Ed institutions: http://www.rediris.es/ldap/schema/iris.schema You can read use cases and some other information (in Spanish) here: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada Perhaps someone with time to spare might be motivated to create a custom schema for Postfix. Personally, I prefer MySQL so it is not something that I would be interested in. -- Jerry ✌ postfix-u...@seibercom.net _ TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html He that teaches himself has a fool for a master. Benjamin Franklin
status=bounced unknown user:
Hi all status=bounced unknown user: since MANY days I google, trial and error, read howtos and .postfix.org-howto's/readme's and still get above error any precise help would be most welcome setup: postfix version 2.6.1 + dovecot on opensuse 11.2 2 MX servers 1 running since 4 years on postfix/cyrus (currently my primary MX) 1 NEW MX to replace old above - running postfix/dovecut for the current configuration I have thus 2 MX entries in my NS kriyayoga.com. 3600IN MX 0 mail.kriyayoga.com. kriyayoga.com. 3600IN MX 10 smtp.kriyayoga.com. ALL problems listed are related to smtp.kriyayoga.com - which eventually shall replace old primary MX or be used with a second new MX server as backup. working so far is: auth - BOTH POP3 (dovecot) and SMTP (postfix) there is NO mail on server because any method i send mail - error always is status=bounced unknown user: all testmail are send directly to the ONE MX server smtp.kriyayoga.com mydomain is: 1 domain = kriyayoga.com running with round-robin on total 4 servers =1 server only for NS + MX and the other 3 servers for content (plus ecards via MX) i.e. local system mail from 4 servers need to be sent to/received in one mailbox mail from the world needs to be received in same mailbox mail from any of the 4 servers needs to go into the world ( i run among others eCards on 3 servers listed as mynetworks ) 1 mailbox = 1 mail user = NON-unix user = hans (me) ALL eMail addresses are @kriyayoga.com I am honestly NOT sure how many lists/maps/aliases i really need for a solid simple and secure mail system ( my old primary MX with cyrus and mysql appears much simpler in config than what I have now) ... after about one week of reading and reconfiguring ... my brain smokes and all looks more Chinese than simple to me. may be i need help to simplify all main.cf to the real minimum necessary for a one NON-unix mail box user system. If I remove in main.cf $mydomain, localhost from mydestination = then all email sent from me to me goes instantly to my main MX mail.kriyayoga.com without further error messages. a verbose mail log output is located as plain text file at http://www.kriyayoga.com/god/postfix/mail-log.txt this verbose mail log output is for ONE email sent from me to me using the MX in question. below postconf -n alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases biff = no broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix data_directory = /var/lib/postfix debug_peer_level = 2 delay_warning_time = 1h disable_dns_lookups = no disable_mime_output_conversion = no html_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/html inet_interfaces = all inet_protocols = all local_recipient_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/local-recipients mail_owner = postfix mail_spool_directory = /var/spool/mail mailbox_command = /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver mailbox_size_limit = 0 mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq manpage_directory = /usr/share/man masquerade_classes = envelope_sender, header_sender, header_recipient masquerade_exceptions = root message_size_limit = 0 message_strip_characters = \0 mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, $mydomain, localhost mydomain = kriyayoga.com myhostname = kriyayoga1.kriyayoga.com mynetworks = 85.10.203.98, 78.46.106.71, 78.46.101.111, 127.0.0.0/8, 88.198.14.45 mynetworks_style = subnet myorigin = $mydomain newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/README_FILES relay_domains = $mydestination, hash:/etc/postfix/relay relocated_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relocated sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/samples sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sender_canonical sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail setgid_group = maildrop smtp_sasl_auth_enable = no smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd smtp_sasl_security_options = cram-md5 plain login smtp_use_tls = no smtpd_helo_required = no smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth smtpd_sasl_security_options =
Re: status=bounced unknown user:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:40:55 +0800 Hans Neukomm h...@kriyayoga.com articulated: below postconf -n alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases biff = no broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix data_directory = /var/lib/postfix debug_peer_level = 2 delay_warning_time = 1h disable_dns_lookups = no disable_mime_output_conversion = no html_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/html inet_interfaces = all inet_protocols = all local_recipient_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/local-recipients mail_owner = postfix mail_spool_directory = /var/spool/mail mailbox_command = /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver mailbox_size_limit = 0 mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq manpage_directory = /usr/share/man masquerade_classes = envelope_sender, header_sender, header_recipient masquerade_exceptions = root message_size_limit = 0 message_strip_characters = \0 mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, $mydomain, localhost mydomain = kriyayoga.com myhostname = kriyayoga1.kriyayoga.com mynetworks = 85.10.203.98, 78.46.106.71, 78.46.101.111, 127.0.0.0/8, 88.198.14.45 mynetworks_style = subnet myorigin = $mydomain newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/README_FILES relay_domains = $mydestination, hash:/etc/postfix/relay relocated_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relocated sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/packages/postfix-doc/samples sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sender_canonical sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail setgid_group = maildrop smtp_sasl_auth_enable = no smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd smtp_sasl_security_options = cram-md5 plain login smtp_use_tls = no smtpd_helo_required = no smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot smtpd_sender_restrictions = hash:/etc/postfix/access smtpd_tls_auth_only = no smtpd_use_tls = no strict_8bitmime = no strict_rfc821_envelopes = no transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 virtual_alias_domains = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual virtual_transport = dovecot Why are you setting configuration parameters to their default setting? It doesn't serve any purpose that I am aware of. -- Jerry ✌ postfix-u...@seibercom.net _ TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
Re: status=bounced unknown user:
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 at 14:40 CEST, Hans Neukomm h...@kriyayoga.com wrote: status=bounced unknown user: since MANY days I google, trial and error, read howtos and .postfix.org-howto's/readme's and still get above error [...] 1 mailbox = 1 mail user = NON-unix user = hans (me) Local domains with deliveries via local(8) are meant for local (Unix) users. Either a) use another delivery agent in place of local(8) by setting local_transport (rather than mailbox_command), or b) make the domain into a virtual mailbox domain. Please do not supply verbose logs unless asked to do so. Postfix debugging *very* rarely requires verbose logs, so most of the times they just add noise. [...] -- Magnus Bäck mag...@dsek.lth.se
Re: OT: ldap schema
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 at 13:30 CEST, Jerry postfix-u...@seibercom.net wrote: On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:02:15 +0200 Victoriano Giralt victori...@uma.es articulated: I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions for mail routing and is in use in several Universities and Higher Ed institutions: http://www.rediris.es/ldap/schema/iris.schema You can read use cases and some other information (in Spanish) here: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada Perhaps someone with time to spare might be motivated to create a custom schema for Postfix. Personally, I prefer MySQL so it is not something that I would be interested in. No, a Postfix LDAP schema doesn't make sense. Postfix works with any reasonably designed schema. LDAP schemas should match the information model and not the tools used to access the information. -- Magnus Bäck mag...@dsek.lth.se
distribution issues with Postfix
I am finally putting together a test mail server (something I wish I had when putting together the first mail server, but lack of hardware due to lack of funding flow limited that). But now I have another machine. But I am still seeing all the issues I had before with Ubuntu. At first I tried to install an identical Ubuntu system as before (based on 9.10 because that was current at the time of the first mail server). Most of the issues are related to packaging (for example, cannot uninstall a package because one of the config files it's trying to delete does not exist ... touched it to make it exist and then it happily removes the package). Anyway ... I am considering expediting a switch to another distribution. Or maybe just the latest version of Ubuntu. Personally, I favor Slackware, since it is friendlier to installing packages from upstream source (so I have the latest version). But I will need to make a justification to management to add Slackware to our mix (which is currently Centos, Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu). I want to get away from hand holding distribution packaging systems ... too many bruises on my hands from that. What I'd like to find out is what are known issues Postfix has with these or other distributions (even if, and especially if, the distribution itself is the cause of the issue). Also, does anyone know a general rough estimate of the proportions of existing distribution deployments to host Postfix? What distributions do the heavier Postfix admins use? FYI, BSD is not ruled out, either. This will be with Dovecot as the IMAP end. -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On 07/07/2010 05:25 PM, Phil Howard wrote: I am finally putting together a test mail server (something I wish I had when putting together the first mail server, but lack of hardware due to lack of funding flow limited that). But now I have another machine. But I am still seeing all the issues I had before with Ubuntu. At first I tried to install an identical Ubuntu system as before (based on 9.10 because that was current at the time of the first mail server). Most of the issues are related to packaging (for example, cannot uninstall a package because one of the config files it's trying to delete does not exist ... touched it to make it exist and then it happily removes the package). Bla bla bla.. unrelated to postfix. Anyway ... I am considering expediting a switch to another distribution. Or maybe just the latest version of Ubuntu. Personally, I favor Slackware, since it is friendlier to installing packages from upstream source (so I have the latest version). But I will need to make a justification to management to add Slackware to our mix (which is currently Centos, Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu). More bla bla bla.. unrelated to postfix. I want to get away from hand holding distribution packaging systems ... too many bruises on my hands from that. What I'd like to find out is what are known issues Postfix has with these or other distributions (even if, and especially if, the distribution itself is the cause of the issue). Also, does anyone know a general rough estimate of the proportions of existing distribution deployments to host Postfix? What distributions do the heavier Postfix admins use? FYI, BSD is not ruled out, either. I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure postfix properly. Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort. Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported here. If there are any known gotchas with specific OSes, these will be noted in the documentation where applicable. This will be with Dovecot as the IMAP end. Again, utterly not postfix related. J. (I'll be mogadored if I can find a postfix question anywhere in there)
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote: I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure postfix properly. Name it. Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort. Which do you use? Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported here. Maybe if you had read the background information instead of going bla bla bla you would have understood what the purpose of all this is. Who better to know what OS/distro works better with Postfix that those who actually use it? If there are any known gotchas with specific OSes, these will be noted in the documentation where applicable. Does that include things like easier to maintain Postfix? ... doesn't interfere with Postfix? How about a summary? This will be with Dovecot as the IMAP end. Again, utterly not postfix related. Actually, it is related. But apparently you probably figure that if anything involves 2 or more pieces of software, it's only related to the other pieces (whichever they happen to be). (I'll be mogadored if I can find a postfix question anywhere in there) Why did you bother responding if you have such a narrow view that you cannot see it? Do you actually like to show off how arrogant you can be? -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
Re: status=bounced unknown user:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 09:09 -0400, Jerry wrote: Why are you setting configuration parameters to their default setting? It doesn't serve any purpose that I am aware of. NOE does it do any harm I am aware of but it may be bad style - I am aware of that but to know which lines are obsolete might have been of much greater help to shorten the mail.cf the wrong configuration or missing configuration lines most likely cause the problem I have and that is what I intended or hoped to find out on this postfix-users mail-list greetings hans signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Convert an attachment to a link
Where do I look in postfix to introduce the following behavior. When mail arrives to the mail server, I like to convert any attachment to link if it is bigger than say 1M and add a footer in the body like below, before dropping/relaying it to the mailbox local or remote. all attachments 1M are converted to link(s) below. https://link.example.com/file1 https://link.example.com/file2 here file1/file2 would be exact name of the file like mydoc.doc any doc with spaces should be converted to `_' I like to detach the big attachments and save them to a dir. My users have web access to that dir. Then modify the body of the email by appending the links to it. -- Asif Iqbal PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Re: Convert an attachment to a link
On 7/7/2010 2:16 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: Where do I look in postfix to introduce the following behavior. When mail arrives to the mail server, I like to convert any attachment to link if it is bigger than say 1M and add a footer in the body like below, before dropping/relaying it to the mailbox local or remote. all attachments 1M are converted to link(s) below. https://link.example.com/file1 https://link.example.com/file2 here file1/file2 would be exact name of the file like mydoc.doc any doc with spaces should be converted to `_' I like to detach the big attachments and save them to a dir. My users have web access to that dir. Then modify the body of the email by appending the links to it. My apologies if you get this twice Asif, I did not mean to reply to you directly but to the list. I don't believe postfix has this type of behavior, although I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. Probably need some sort of policy server to do that iirc. -Matt
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On 2010-07-07 2:02 PM, Phil Howard wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote: I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure postfix properly. Name it. All of them? Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort. Which do you use? Gentoo... Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported here. Who better to know what OS/distro works better with Postfix that those who actually use it? It is a meaningless question. They all work equally well, as long as you know how to configure it within the confines of the OS you are working with. And it is usually best to go first to the support list for the OS you are using to ask questions, to make sure the problem isn't due to some OS and/or packaging quirk/customization, and only come here once you've determined the problem is likely a basic (or advanced) postfix config issue. If there are any known gotchas with specific OSes, these will be noted in the documentation where applicable. Does that include things like easier to maintain Postfix? ... doesn't interfere with Postfix? How about a summary? Do you seriously expect a meaningful answer to such a broad question on a mail list? Ok, well, if you must have an answer, it is 42. http://tinyurl.com/2e3fbgf -- Best regards, Charles
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 14:30, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote: On 2010-07-07 2:02 PM, Phil Howard wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote: I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure postfix properly. Name it. All of them? No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I suspect at least some surely must be less so. Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort. Which do you use? Gentoo... OK. I'll include that in consideration. Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported here. Who better to know what OS/distro works better with Postfix that those who actually use it? It is a meaningless question. They all work equally well, as long as you know how to configure it within the confines of the OS you are working with. And it is usually best to go first to the support list for the OS you are using to ask questions, to make sure the problem isn't due to some OS and/or packaging quirk/customization, and only come here once you've determined the problem is likely a basic (or advanced) postfix config issue. Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it. Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with Postfix. I personally think the specific problems are more of how Ubuntu handles Postfix poorly. One issue (which may be part of the problem) is the Postfix package in Ubuntu being an older one. If there are any known gotchas with specific OSes, these will be noted in the documentation where applicable. Does that include things like easier to maintain Postfix? ... doesn't interfere with Postfix? How about a summary? Do you seriously expect a meaningful answer to such a broad question on a mail list? Where's the Postfix support web forum, then? Since the mailing list is the only real place with lost of Postfix experts, this must be the place. My question is a question about using Postfix. I thought this was the postfix-users mailing list. Or did my subscription get crosswired to the postfix-developers mailing list? Ok, well, if you must have an answer, it is 42. Oh, I thought you were saying it was Gentoo. -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
re: spam that does get through looks normal.
I do accept mail besides postini. But when I track this mail (spam) back it is comming through postini. What I'm seeing is a spike in spam. This will normally last for 1 week or so then stop. But during that time. All heck breaks loose for me. I admin other domains besides mychoice.cc. Some use postini. Some don't. 2 of them post use postini and I verified the spam is being delivered from the postini servers. Basicly after 1 week or less or what not postini stops the spam or the spammers move on. As in this case. THe ones I got look like rejections. However, postini seems to treat them like normal e-mail messages. I talked to the provider we get postini from and no problem was found plus by the time I get done looking into it more. The spam goes down. Though I'm still getting spam messages. I wish I could catch some of this my mail queue as stated before. I will also look into more spam assasian settings too. Current Postfix config file. alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases allow_percent_hack = no biff = no broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix debug_peer_level = 2 delay_warning_time = 4h disable_vrfy_command = yes header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks html_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.4.7-documentation/html inet_interfaces = localhost, 172.16.0.185 invalid_hostname_reject_code = 554 local_recipient_maps = $virtual_mailbox_maps local_transport = virtual mail_owner = postfix mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq.postfix manpage_directory = /usr/share/man maximal_backoff_time = 8000s maximal_queue_lifetime = 7d message_size_limit = 2560 minimal_backoff_time = 1000s multi_recipient_bounce_reject_code = 554 mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost mynetworks = $config_directory/mynetworks newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases.postfix non_fqdn_reject_code = 554 notify_classes = resource,software proxy_interfaces = 24.117.29.115 proxy_read_maps = $local_recipient_maps $mydestination $virtual_alias_maps $virtual_alias_domains $virtual_mailbox_maps $virtual_mailbox_domains $relay_recipient_maps $relay_domains $canonical_maps $sender_canonical_maps $recipient_canonical_maps $relocated_maps $transport_maps $mynetworks $virtual_mailbox_limit_maps queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.4.7-documentation/readme recipient_delimiter = relay_domains = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_relay_domains_maps.cf relay_domains_reject_code = 554 relay_recipient_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_relay_recipient_maps.cf relayhost = mail.cableone.net sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.3.3/samples sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix setgid_group = postdrop smtp_helo_timeout = 60s smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/access, reject_unknown_client smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_multi_recipient_bounce,permit smtpd_delay_reject = yes smtpd_discard_ehlo_keywords = silent-discard, dsn smtpd_error_sleep_time = 20s smtpd_hard_error_limit = 12 smtpd_helo_required = yes smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp, permit smtpd_junk_command_limit = 2 smtpd_recipient_limit = 30 smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/access,reject_unauth_destination, reject_non_fqdn_recipient,reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_invalid_hostname,reject_unknown_recipient_domain, reject_unauth_pipelining,reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org,reject_rbl_client dsn.rfc-ignorant.org,reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net, reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net,reject_rbl_client ix.dnsbl.manitu.net smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unauth_pipelining, permit smtpd_soft_error_limit = 3 strict_rfc821_envelopes = yes swap_bangpath = no unknown_address_reject_code = 554 unknown_client_reject_code = 554 unknown_hostname_reject_code = 554 unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 450 unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_alias_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code = 554 unverified_recipient_reject_code = 554
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote: Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it. Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with Postfix. I personally think the specific problems are more of how Ubuntu handles Postfix poorly. One issue (which may be part of the problem) is the Postfix package in Ubuntu being an older one. No. It really doesn't. If you don't understand how to use your distro package management system, you should seek help in a distro specific venue. Scott K
Re: status=bounced unknown user:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 15:57 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote: 1 mailbox = 1 mail user = NON-unix user = hans (me) Local domains with deliveries via local(8) are meant for local (Unix) users. Either a) use another delivery agent in place of local(8) by setting local_transport (rather than mailbox_command), or b) make the domain into a virtual mailbox domain. Please do not supply verbose logs unless asked to do so. Postfix debugging *very* rarely requires verbose logs, so most of the times they just add noise. [...] thanks Magnus I will Google and find out how to do either of your 2 options suggested by you re verbose logs: I work in remote Cambodian province - regular daily www-interruptions and slow www-access lines make it impossible to be any time online or upload on request any time additional data therefore i preferred to supply ALL verbose mail-log during a good www connection-time for those having difficulties filtering out the important short data from the verbose log - here the regular mail log output for ONE mail sent to my mailbox: - mail-log Jul 8 02:55:14 kriyayoga postfix/smtpd[6128]: connect from unknown[124.108.51.96] Jul 8 02:55:14 kriyayoga dovecot: auth(default): new auth connection: pid=6128 Jul 8 02:55:15 kriyayoga dovecot: auth(default): client in: AUTH#0111#011PLAIN#011service=smtp#011nologin#011lip=78.46.101.111#011rip=124.108.51.96#011resp=aGFucwBoYW5zAEk4Q3Nhd084MUR4Y1JlTTh1QmgwTA== Jul 8 02:55:15 kriyayoga dovecot: auth(default): passwd-file(hans,124.108.51.96): lookup: user=hans file=/etc/dovecot/passwd Jul 8 02:55:15 kriyayoga dovecot: auth(default): client out: OK#0111#011user=hans Jul 8 02:55:15 kriyayoga postfix/smtpd[6128]: E27E229D9B: client=unknown[124.108.51.96], sasl_method=PLAIN, sasl_username=hans Jul 8 02:55:16 kriyayoga postfix/cleanup[6133]: E27E229D9B: message-id=201007080255.13693.webmas...@kriyayoga.com Jul 8 02:55:16 kriyayoga postfix/qmgr[6072]: E27E229D9B: from=webmas...@kriyayoga.com, size=1249, nrcpt=2 (queue active) Jul 8 02:55:16 kriyayoga postfix/local[6134]: E27E229D9B: to=h...@kriyayoga.com, relay=local, delay=0.55, delays=0.5/0.01/0/0.04, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: hans) Jul 8 02:55:16 kriyayoga postfix/smtpd[6128]: disconnect from unknown[124.108.51.96] Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/local[6135]: E27E229D9B: to=h...@kriyayoga.com, relay=local, delay=1.7, delays=0.5/0.02/0/1.1, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: hans) Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/cleanup[6133]: 8ECE729F0E: message-id=20100707185517.8ece729...@kriyayoga1.kriyayoga.com Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/bounce[6137]: E27E229D9B: sender non-delivery notification: 8ECE729F0E Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/qmgr[6072]: 8ECE729F0E: from=, size=3095, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/qmgr[6072]: E27E229D9B: removed Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/local[6134]: 8ECE729F0E: to=h...@kriyayoga.com, orig_to=webmas...@kriyayoga.com, relay=local, delay=0.03, delays=0.02/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: hans) Jul 8 02:55:17 kriyayoga postfix/qmgr[6072]: 8ECE729F0E: removed - greetings hans -- Hans Neukomm h...@kriyayoga.com Cyberspace Ashram signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
Phil Howard wrote: No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I suspect at least some surely must be less so. No FUD please. I've deployed smtp servers running hpux, solaris, slackware, redhat, fedora, SuSE, debian, ubuntu and others - as someone just pointed out, having some knowledge of the platform you're running postfix on is rather important. I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with. Joe
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman post...@kitterman.com wrote: On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote: Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it. Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with Postfix. I personally think the specific problems are more of how Ubuntu handles Postfix poorly. One issue (which may be part of the problem) is the Postfix package in Ubuntu being an older one. No. It really doesn't. If you don't understand how to use your distro package management system, you should seek help in a distro specific venue. BTDT. They say it's not a distro specific issue. I don't know if I agree with them or not. But I am considering abandoning that distro. If Postfix people's experience was that the distro does not have such issues with Postfix, then it might be worthwhile pursuing that issue with them (the distro people) further. Quite possibly it is the person who makes the Postfix package not doing thing right with respect to either Postfix and/or Ubuntu. But I might also seek another distro. It has already been said here that I should run the latest version of Postfix. That would be compiling from source since the latest is not packaged in the distro. In general, that's not a problem. But it is to a certain degree a problem in some distros (and why this is, certainly is not a Postfix issue ... I have experienced the problem with other than Postfix). I'm just saying that so you know why I'm also looking away from Ubuntu (please do not assume I am asking you to fix those Ubuntu issues). How about simply, which distro various Postfix users are running? -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:11, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with. Are you using the packaged version of Postfix, or the source you compile yourself? -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:14, Gary Chambers gwch...@gmail.com wrote: No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I suspect at least some surely must be less so. Why not simply avoid whatever hassles you're encountering with your distribution's version of the software and compile your own? I'd like PostgreSQL support in Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS, but I didn't come to the list to ask for it. Compiling my own is indeed an option. But to get there, I have to make the commitment to jump distributions (because of distribution specific issues that are not Postfix specific). The question (not to this list ... one I have to find the answer to, which is going to involve collecting information from a number of sources) is whether that approach will involve the least issues compared to other approaches (such as staying with this distro, or using another, etc). -- sHiFt HaPpEnS!
OFFLIST - Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:13:00 Phil Howard wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman post...@kitterman.com wrote: On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote: Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it. Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with Postfix. I personally think the specific problems are more of how Ubuntu handles Postfix poorly. One issue (which may be part of the problem) is the Postfix package in Ubuntu being an older one. No. It really doesn't. If you don't understand how to use your distro package management system, you should seek help in a distro specific venue. BTDT. They say it's not a distro specific issue. I don't know if I agree with them or not. But I am considering abandoning that distro. If Postfix people's experience was that the distro does not have such issues with Postfix, then it might be worthwhile pursuing that issue with them (the distro people) further. Quite possibly it is the person who makes the Postfix package not doing thing right with respect to either Postfix and/or Ubuntu. But I might also seek another distro. It has already been said here that I should run the latest version of Postfix. That would be compiling from source since the latest is not packaged in the distro. In general, that's not a problem. But it is to a certain degree a problem in some distros (and why this is, certainly is not a Postfix issue ... I have experienced the problem with other than Postfix). I'm just saying that so you know why I'm also looking away from Ubuntu (please do not assume I am asking you to fix those Ubuntu issues). How about simply, which distro various Postfix users are running? Who is They and what exactly is the issue? In addition to running a number of mail servers with Postfix on Ubuntu, I'm also an Ubuntu developer and I can look into it. Scott K
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:14:08 Gary Chambers wrote: No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I suspect at least some surely must be less so. Why not simply avoid whatever hassles you're encountering with your distribution's version of the software and compile your own? I'd like PostgreSQL support in Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS, but I didn't come to the list to ask for it. Just so the archives have the correct information about this: sudo apt-get install postfix-pgsql is all that's needed for PostgreSQL support in Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS. Scott K
Re: distribution issues with Postfix
Phil Howard wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:11, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with. Are you using the packaged version of Postfix, or the source you compile yourself? I almost never install tarballs, but prefer to take the time to find or make a deb package if at all possible, because of the manageability added by the packaging system. The stock postfix package included with ubuntu has worked well for me, no surprises, no problems, either with the postfix 2.5.1 package that came with ubuntu 8.04, or the postfix 2.7.0 package that came with ubuntu 10.04. It shouldn't be too much trouble to build a package of say 2.7.0 from 10.04, for installation in a 8.04 system. There are also repositories with ready-to-install, newer versions of postfix, if you need them. BTW it's best to use one of the currently supported LTS server versions which I mentioned above, rather than a release like 9.10. Joe
Re: OT: ldap schema
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 03:58:54PM +0200, Magnus B?ck wrote: On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 at 13:30 CEST, Jerry postfix-u...@seibercom.net wrote: On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:02:15 +0200 Victoriano Giralt victori...@uma.es articulated: I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions for mail routing and is in use in several Universities and Higher Ed institutions: http://www.rediris.es/ldap/schema/iris.schema You can read use cases and some other information (in Spanish) here: http://wiki.rediris.es/gtschema/Portada Perhaps someone with time to spare might be motivated to create a custom schema for Postfix. Personally, I prefer MySQL so it is not something that I would be interested in. No, a Postfix LDAP schema doesn't make sense. Postfix works with any reasonably designed schema. LDAP schemas should match the information model and not the tools used to access the information. There are many possible LDAP schemas that support various Postfix features. Which schema is most suitable depends a lot on what mappings one needs to support high level Postfix abstractions such as virtual mailboxes, virtual aliases, ... -- Viktor.
Re: Convert an attachment to a link
07.07.2010 20:27, Matt Hayes: On 7/7/2010 2:16 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: Where do I look in postfix to introduce the following behavior. When mail arrives to the mail server, I like to convert any attachment to link if it is bigger than say 1M and add a footer in the body like below, before dropping/relaying it to the mailbox local or remote. all attachments 1M are converted to link(s) below. https://link.example.com/file1 https://link.example.com/file2 here file1/file2 would be exact name of the file like mydoc.doc any doc with spaces should be converted to `_' I like to detach the big attachments and save them to a dir. My users have web access to that dir. Then modify the body of the email by appending the links to it. Probably need some sort of policy server to do that iirc. A postfix policy server doesn't have access to the mail body. I guess that's a job for a milter|smtpd_proxy_filter|content_filter. -- Regards mks
Re: Convert an attachment to a link
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:40:30PM +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote: 07.07.2010 20:27, Matt Hayes: On 7/7/2010 2:16 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: Where do I look in postfix to introduce the following behavior. When mail arrives to the mail server, I like to convert any attachment to link if it is bigger than say 1M and add a footer in the body like below, before dropping/relaying it to the mailbox local or remote. all attachments 1M are converted to link(s) below. https://link.example.com/file1 https://link.example.com/file2 here file1/file2 would be exact name of the file like mydoc.doc any doc with spaces should be converted to `_' I like to detach the big attachments and save them to a dir. My users have web access to that dir. Then modify the body of the email by appending the links to it. Probably need some sort of policy server to do that iirc. A postfix policy server doesn't have access to the mail body. I guess that's a job for a milter|smtpd_proxy_filter|content_filter. Or, perhaps a better option, implement this in a delivery agent. -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless /dev/rob0 or not-spam is in Subject: header
Current Postfix RPMs?
I'm new to Postfix, and I'm learning all I can from the readme files. However, I'm using CentOS 5.5 and the repo contains v2.3 of postfix. Building from source is causing strange problems with yum. Is there anywhere I don't know about where I can find an RPM for a current version of Postfix?
Re: Current Postfix RPMs?
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:32:43AM +0100, Matthew Valentino wrote: I'm new to Postfix, and I'm learning all I can from the readme files. However, I'm using CentOS 5.5 and the repo contains v2.3 of postfix. Building from source is causing strange problems with yum. Is there anywhere I don't know about where I can find an RPM for a current version of Postfix? My question would be -- do you really need it? Especially for a production deployment, it's nice to use the vendor provided packages as they will receive regular security updates and such. If I recall, however, there is an updated version in CentOS-extras (or maybe it's centosplus, I forget). You're other RedHat'ish option would be to rebuild the Fedora 13 SRPM's for CentOS. Could be a bit of a learning curve there though. :) If possible, just stick with 2.3 unless there's some specific feature you're missing. Ray
Re: Current Postfix RPMs?
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 00:32:43 +0100, Matthew Valentino wrote: I'm new to Postfix, and I'm learning all I can from the readme files. However, I'm using CentOS 5.5 and the repo contains v2.3 of postfix. Building from source is causing strange problems with yum. Is there anywhere I don't know about where I can find an RPM for a current version of Postfix? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/207766 -- Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
Re: Current Postfix RPMs?
Awesome! Thank you for that link! On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 00:32:43 +0100, Matthew Valentino wrote: I'm new to Postfix, and I'm learning all I can from the readme files. However, I'm using CentOS 5.5 and the repo contains v2.3 of postfix. Building from source is causing strange problems with yum. Is there anywhere I don't know about where I can find an RPM for a current version of Postfix? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/207766 -- Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
postconf and TLS on AIX
Anyone out there been able to configure postfix with TLS certificate support on AIX? I am trying to get postfix running on a RS/6000 running AIX 5.3.0.0. Postfix is working, it sends mail, which is all we want this server to do (it will never need to receive). Where I am running into trouble is getting TLS working, we postfix to send mail to a specific server and use certificates to authenticate and encrypt the transaction. I compiled Postfix with TLS and started configuration according to the instructions on the postfix.org site (http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html) * enabling TLS results in postfix failing to load. By process of elimination, it is pretty clear that smtpd_tls_security_level = may is the culprit. Any value aside from no causes a failure to start. I am not sure if these are related , but I figure it is worth mentioning. * when I run postconf -a nothing is returned. However, if I enter postconf | grep cyrus I get the following: cyrus_sasl_config_path = lmtp_sasl_type = cyrus send_cyrus_sasl_authzid = no smtp_sasl_type = cyrus smtpd_sasl_type = cyrus It looks to me like this was set to use cyrus, but shouldn't postconf -a tell me this? openssl is already installed on the server in /usr/bin/ I should also say that I am pretty new to AIX, but have worked with Postfix on other forms of Linux/UNIX, so I am not sure if the issues are based in Postfix, AIX strangeness or a combination of the two. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Theo
Re: status=bounced unknown user:
Jerry put forth on 7/7/2010 8:09 AM: Why are you setting configuration parameters to their default setting? It doesn't serve any purpose that I am aware of. I've seen this quite a bit. It leads me to believe there are some Linux distros that ship with this stuff in main.cf by default. IIRC CentOS is one of them. It may be better to phrase this question with Did your OS stick xxx into main.cf? -- Stan
Re: Convert an attachment to a link
On 07/07/2010 01:16 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: Where do I look in postfix to introduce the following behavior. When mail arrives to the mail server, I like to convert any attachment to link if it is bigger than say 1M and add a footer in the body like below, before dropping/relaying it to the mailbox local or remote. all attachments 1M are converted to link(s) below. https://link.example.com/file1 https://link.example.com/file2 here file1/file2 would be exact name of the file like mydoc.doc any doc with spaces should be converted to `_' I like to detach the big attachments and save them to a dir. My users have web access to that dir. Then modify the body of the email by appending the links to it. Check this: http://robur.slu.se/jensl/aradis/ I never test it, and is a little outdated, probably you can modify it to your needs. Best regards and keep us update with your results.
Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 23:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote: Very aware spammers can create their own domains and and SPF records. They can do essentially the same thing with any anti spam measures. And I have see a number of them do just that, an SPF record of entire IPv4 address space (0.0.0.0/0). But guess what, everyone of them has been in an RHSBL. The fact it prevents them from using just any ol domain instead of their own makes it extermely quick and easy for them to get detected and added into the RHSBL's. Requiring an SPF record to publish a domains authorized MTA's is very effective. Having a cover-all SPF record doesnot mean the domain is spamming. Even a top email standards aware company like messagelabs has a stupid SPF record dig messagelabs.com TXT +short v=spf1 +all Nevertheless SPF is an excellent tool for whitelisting with SA whitelist_auth feature. If postfix.org also users SPF I could use it for all my servers here.
