Hi all
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that mean I
am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
Regards
* Amira Othman a.oth...@cairosource.com:
Hi all
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received.
Yep, seen those too
Is that mean I am receiving spam ?
No, it means you're receiving mails with an empty message-id :)
and how can I handle that?
What is there to handle?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:39:25 +0200, Amira Othman wrote:
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that
mean I am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
spamassassin hits on MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT from this mail, so related ?
No everything is working fine. But I thought that every email is sent
associated with unique message id. And I am using it in a script that parse log
file to insert it to database. But now I have duplication in message id because
of empty one . does every mail sent or received must have queue
Hi Everyone,
I have a Postfix edge MX server which is used to receive incoming mail
from the outside world. This server forwards mail onto an internal SMTP
server which has all the user accounts. Aliases are managed by the edge
server.
On the edge server, I have a virtual_alias_maps. It is
* Amira Othman a.oth...@cairosource.com:
No everything is working fine. But I thought that every email is sent
associated with unique message id.
Theory and praxis :)
And I am using it in a script that parse log file to insert it to
database. But now I have duplication in message id because
Em 06/12/11 18:27, Wietse Venema escreveu:
Leonardo Rodrigues:
i'm facing some weird problems with a particular customer which has
2 MXs published. The first one (lower priority number) is rejecting our
emails lots of times (421 You are disconnected for policy reasons). And,
on the logs,
Leonardo Rodrigues:
Nov 16 15:23:36 correio postfix/error[26594]: C955515D4F2:
to=ourcusto...@azevedosette.com.br, relay=none, delay=0.04,
delays=0.02/0.01/0/0.01, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (delivery
temporarily suspended: lost connection with
mailsp.azevedosette.com.br[200.162.47.19]
Em 07/12/11 10:10, Wietse Venema escreveu:
Leonardo Rodrigues:
Nov 16 15:23:36 correio postfix/error[26594]: C955515D4F2:
to=ourcusto...@azevedosette.com.br, relay=none, delay=0.04,
delays=0.02/0.01/0/0.01, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (delivery
temporarily suspended: lost connection with
Amira Othman:
Hi all
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that mean I
am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
Postfix logs an empty message-id when the message does not have one.
According to RFC 822 and its successors, Message-ID is not required.
On 12/6/2011 11:51 PM, Ramesh wrote:
Please don't top post.
Here is log at recipient end, 164.164.87.90 is public ip address and
10.3.1.83 is private ip of mail server and 192.168.1.114 is local
client ip address.
how to hide our private ip address (10.3.1.83 and Local subnet)
* Sahil Tandon sahil+post...@tandon.net [2011-12-06 01:54]:
that's not really an option for me, I need these lists in MySQL. It
seems I have to live with it and make MySQL as stable as possible.
Is your list of virtual mailbox domains that large or dynamic that it
must be only in SQL?
On 12/7/2011 5:19 AM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I have a Postfix edge MX server which is used to receive incoming
mail from the outside world. This server forwards mail onto an
internal SMTP server which has all the user accounts. Aliases are
managed by the edge server.
On
On 12/7/2011 6:03 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues wrote:
Anyway, i'm having hard times trying to figure out why, for some
messages, like the queueid i posted the full log, postfix is
apparently not even trying to delivery to the primary MX for some
large periods of time.
Postfix does not include
Sebastian Wiesinger:
I read these but it's not clear to me. So the transport lookup doesn't
work, but why does that prevent postfix from doing a 4xx error code?
You should remove the domains from SQL (or LDAP or other slow tables).
Once you do that, smtpd will reply 4xx after email address
Am 07.12.2011 16:59, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Sebastian Wiesinger:
I read these but it's not clear to me. So the transport lookup doesn't
work, but why does that prevent postfix from doing a 4xx error code?
You should remove the domains from SQL (or LDAP or other slow tables).
Once you do
Reindl Harald:
Am 07.12.2011 16:59, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Sebastian Wiesinger:
I read these but it's not clear to me. So the transport lookup doesn't
work, but why does that prevent postfix from doing a 4xx error code?
You should remove the domains from SQL (or LDAP or other slow
Am 07.12.2011 17:17, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Reindl Harald:
Am 07.12.2011 16:59, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Sebastian Wiesinger:
I read these but it's not clear to me. So the transport lookup doesn't
work, but why does that prevent postfix from doing a 4xx error code?
You should remove the
Hello All,
I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to server
private/policy: Connection timed out
I verified that policyd-spf-perl is the current version, it matched the
current download so there is no corruption etc.
Master
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 10:21:03 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.12.2011 17:17, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Reindl Harald:
Am 07.12.2011 16:59, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Sebastian Wiesinger:
I read these but it's not clear to me. So the transport lookup
doesn't work, but why does that prevent
Jack:
Hello All,
I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to server
private/policy: Connection timed out
I verified that policyd-spf-perl is the current version, it matched the
current download so there is no corruption etc.
Master
Am 07.12.2011 17:42, schrieb /dev/rob0:
Nonsense. Recognition of new domains need not be instant. Email is
itself not instant messaging. Domain owners should expect reasonable
delays in changes of domain hosting, and are responsible to plan
accordingly. Your expectations are absurd.
A
Hi all,
I'm new to this list so forgive me if it was already posted here.
I'm unsing pcre to filter header_checks, but not all rules are working
/^from:.*root@/ REJECT [SN046] is not working
log with masked recipients:
Search Results*Date**From**to**Delay**Status*Dec 7 01:13:31
On 2011-12-06 10:02, DN Singh wrote:
Can you please name the topic, so I can search about it? It would be
of great help.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl
mailto:jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
On 2011-12-05 15:36, DN Singh wrote:
Yes, I tried to figure
some lines from header_check file:
/^from:.*root@/ REJECT [SN046]
/^from:.*anonymous@*/ REJECT [SN047]
/^from:.*@ajufe.org.br/ OK
/^from:/ HOLD
the *TABLE SEARCH ORDER documentation says:*
When a pattern is found that matches the input line, the corresponding action
is executed and then the next
On 12/7/2011 12:03 PM, Marcello Coutinho wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to this list so forgive me if it was already posted here.
I'm unsing pcre to filter header_checks, but not all rules are working
/^from:.*root@/ REJECT [SN046] is not working
Don't confuse envelope sender as shown in
* Marcello Coutinho marcellocouti...@gmail.com:
some lines from header_check file:
/^from:.*root@/ REJECT [SN046]
/^from:.*anonymous@*/ REJECT [SN047]
/^from:.*@ajufe.org.br/ OK
/^from:/ HOLD
These match headers
Dec 7 16:57:03 srvchunk01 postfix/cleanup[42501]: 2E1DB2111FE:
warning:
Thank you, i'll test and feedback.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
* Marcello Coutinho marcellocouti...@gmail.com:
some lines from header_check file:
/^from:.*root@/ REJECT [SN046]
/^from:.*anonymous@*/ REJECT [SN047]
Subject: Re: Getting some errors with policyd-spf-perl
Jack:
Hello All,
I'm seeing a lot of these errors:
10:07:49 houston postfix/smtpd[9818]: warning: problem talking to
server
private/policy: Connection timed out
I verified that policyd-spf-perl is the current version, it
Jack:
Does the error go away when you turn off selinux/apparmor/etc.?
We are not running any of those applications.
FYI, These things run in the kernel, and they have a habit of
breaking system calls such as open and connect.
Wietse
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail unless I
change it to STARTTLS. Can anyone
Am 08.12.2011 01:49, schrieb Grant:
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail unless I
change it to STARTTLS. Can anyone
Am 08.12.2011 02:09, schrieb Grant:
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail unless
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail unless I
change it to STARTTLS. Can anyone
Hi,
Any one knows how I can get postfix-pgsql on centos6 without building
from source? centos-plus repository doesn't seem to have rpm e.t.c.
Am 08.12.2011 02:40, schrieb Grant:
yes because it is STARTTLS
465 is smtp over ssl and NOT STARTTLS
we provide both on smtp/imap/pop3 because all of them
having a dedicated over ssl port and STARTTLS over
the standard-port if configured
SMTP unencrypted / TLS: 587
SMTP over SSL:
On 12/07/2011 08:09 PM, Grant wrote:
Is IMAP over SSL on 993 deprecated in favor of using STARTTLS on 143?
Nope. I personally prefer the dedicated port for POP3/IMAP.
I just read that Squirrelmail doesn't support STARTTLS, so I must
continue to use smtps 465 in order to use Squirrelmail?
Is IMAP over SSL on 993 deprecated in favor of using STARTTLS on 143?
Nope. I personally prefer the dedicated port for POP3/IMAP.
OK, I'll stick with it for IMAP.
I just read that Squirrelmail doesn't support STARTTLS, so I must
continue to use smtps 465 in order to use Squirrelmail?
I
You can rebuild the .src.rpm file from CentOS 6 easily for pgsql. You
just need the following lines in your .rpmmacros file when you rebuild:
%MYSQL 0
%PGSQL 1
Peter
On 08/12/11 14:40, Kwasi Gyasi - Agyei wrote:
Hi,
Any one knows how I can get postfix-pgsql on centos6 without building
On 12/07/2011 07:49 PM, Grant wrote:
I've been using smtps on port 465 for sending mail but I read it's
deprecated so I'm trying to switch to submission port 587.
With 465 I was using the Connection security: SSL/TLS setting in
Thunderbird, but after switching to 587 I can't send mail unless I
Just a point of clarification... port 465 isn't deprecated because it was
never formerly assigned by IANA.
It was highjacked by some mailer (I forget which) and when 587 was assigned, it
was agreed to stop using the former port.
As for one of your questions, it's assumed that 465 comes up with
the main-question is why you need to encrypt sending messages from
a webmail which usually does not go over the WAN
If I set Secure SMTP (TLS) : false in squirrelmail, I get:
Authentication required
530 5.7.0 Must issue a STARTTLS command first
If I change port 587 to 25 in squirrelmail I
On 08/12/11 15:28, Kwasi Gyasi - Agyei wrote:
Thanks, where can I get src.rpm for v2.6.6, the highest version from
here http://postfix.wl0.org/en/available-packages/ is 2.5.
...picking a CentOS mirror at random:
Just a point of clarification... port 465 isn't deprecated because it was
never formerly assigned by IANA.
It was highjacked by some mailer (I forget which) and when 587 was assigned,
it was agreed to stop using the former port.
As for one of your questions, it's assumed that 465 comes up
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 19:58:18 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 12/07/2011 08:09 PM, Grant wrote:
Is IMAP over SSL on 993 deprecated in favor of using STARTTLS on
143?
Nope. I personally prefer the dedicated port for POP3/IMAP.
Preferences aside, the fact remains that SSL has been
On 12/07/2011 09:48 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 19:58:18 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 12/07/2011 08:09 PM, Grant wrote:
Is IMAP over SSL on 993 deprecated in favor of using STARTTLS on
143?
Nope. I personally prefer the dedicated port for POP3/IMAP.
Preferences aside,
On 12/07/2011 09:10 PM, Grant wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why I can't connect to 587 in Squirrelmail.
I can in Thunderbird.
You did select STARTTLS in the SquirrelMail config, right? The postfix
logs might give you an idea what it's trying to do.
The docs say that you need PHP with
You've probably got permit_mynetworks near the top of your
smtpd_foo_restrictions, which are inherited by default. The -o
The only smtpd_foo_restrictions I have in main.cf are:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_sasl_authenticated,
permit_mynetworks,
I'm trying to figure out why I can't connect to 587 in Squirrelmail.
I can in Thunderbird.
You did select STARTTLS in the SquirrelMail config, right? The postfix logs
might give you an idea what it's trying to do.
If I try to send mail in Squirrelmail with Secure SMTP (TLS) : true
I get 0
On 12/07/2011 10:13 PM, Grant wrote:
You've probably got permit_mynetworks near the top of your
smtpd_foo_restrictions, which are inherited by default. The -o
The only smtpd_foo_restrictions I have in main.cf are:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_sasl_authenticated,
51 matches
Mail list logo
