Hello,
For some good reason, I want to have a way to bounce all message in deferred
queue. Is there a command(s) to do so?
many thanks,
- joe
2010/7/22 Leonardo Rodrigues:
Em 22/07/2010 15:49, Noel Jones escreveu:
This email was correctly delivered to gmail and the gmail server
acknowledged receipt. This isn't a postfix configuration issue.
If it doesn't show up in your mailbox, you'll need to check with them for
the reason. Maybe
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 16:38:14 -0500, groups wrote:
> I have an internal relay..
> - relay is mx for my-sub-domain
> - relay forwards of emails to many domains through trusted_networks
Hm? What is trusted_networks in the Postfix context?
> - I want to drop all email to anyu...@my-sub-domain
Th
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:08:32 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> Jul 21 12:11:26 smtpd[31280]: connect from
> mail-ww0-f46.google.com[74.125.82.46]
> Jul 21 12:11:26 smtpd[31280]: 2E..36:
> client=mail-ww0-f46.google.com[74.125.82.46]
> Jul 21 12:11:26 cleanup[31284]: 2E..36: message-id=
> Jul
Greetings,
I haven't checked if it's a flaw in my configuration, but anyways, for the
records:
openSUSE 11.3 does not seem to automatically set up the TLS certs for the
chroot if you have smtp_tls_CApath set, but not smtpd_tls_CApath (note the
d in smtp vs. smtpd).
I needed to do this t
Thank you for your answers.
Should it be any different if disabled the virtual servers
configuration and used .forward redirections ?
Regards,
--
Tomás S.
2010/7/22 Leonardo Rodrigues :
> Em 22/07/2010 15:49, Noel Jones escreveu:
>>
>> This email was correctly delivered to gmail and the gmail s
2010/7/22 Wietse Venema :
> The pass-by-value structure is part of a Postfix safety mechanism,
> and therefore I am not inclined to change it to work around buggy
> compiler features.
Wise decision... Stick with that. :-)
--
Regards,
Kai Krakow
http://hurikhan77.wordpress.com/
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:21:48AM +0200, Bas Mevissen wrote:
> > The local(8) and virtual(8) servers are separately compiled
> > programs (the latter being a stripped down version of the former).
> > The header files in question are not used in the same compilation
> > unit, and so this suggestio
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:24:52PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Victor Duchovni :
>
> > Note, if rsync propagates file permissions before it copies file contents,
> > an incomplete queue file could be picked up by the queue manager before
> > it is completely written. So it is safer to rsyn
I have an internal relay..
- relay is mx for my-sub-domain
- relay forwards of emails to many domains through trusted_networks
- I want to drop all email to anyu...@my-sub-domain
right now it "loops back to myself" then bounces.. would prefer a drop..
- I would like to get email for one account -
Thanks for your help. I created the /dev/urandom device file and
recompiled Postfix with SSL instead of TLS and now everything works like
a charm!
Warm regards,
Jon Kristensen
* Michael Orlitzky :
> >I'll repeat myself. .local is not a reserved suffix. nor is
> >.localdomain, despite what linuxers seem to believe. using such domains
> >is a hijack. you are telling the IETF: we decided to use these suffixes
> >and you cannot use them anymore. This is unacceptable. chose
On 07/20/2010 06:37 PM, mouss wrote:
LuKreme a écrit :
On 19-Jul-2010, at 17:40, Victor Duchovni wrote:
The ".local" TLD is used with mDNS and in conflict with Microsoft Active
Directory for an internal-only TLD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local
It is better to use "exchange.example.co
* Victor Duchovni :
> Note, if rsync propagates file permissions before it copies file contents,
> an incomplete queue file could be picked up by the queue manager before
> it is completely written. So it is safer to rsync outside "incoming"
> (in the same file-system) and then rename into "incomi
Vasya Pupkin:
> > In particular, if a bounce is caused by a downstream MTA rejecting
> > an email because it's too large, then that's an unavoidable bounce.
> > But it's also unlikely to be backscatter
>
> In my case it was one of the most reasons why my server acted as a
> backscatterer.
You hav
Em 22/07/2010 15:49, Noel Jones escreveu:
This email was correctly delivered to gmail and the gmail server
acknowledged receipt. This isn't a postfix configuration issue.
If it doesn't show up in your mailbox, you'll need to check with them
for the reason. Maybe their spam filters discarde
On 7/22/2010 1:35 PM, TSPTS wrote:
Hello,
I configured postfix with mysql virtual mailboxes following the instructions
on http://www.esdebian.org/wiki/servidor-correo (instructions are in
spanish, but I have attached the contents of the main.cf file for
reference). Everything worked fine, but I
Hello,
I configured postfix with mysql virtual mailboxes following the instructions
on http://www.esdebian.org/wiki/servidor-correo (instructions are in
spanish, but I have attached the contents of the main.cf file for
reference). Everything worked fine, but I'm not able to forward e-mail to
ext
* Victor Duchovni :
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:35:14PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> > > Consider using RSYNC to COPY the file from the hold queue to the
> > > incoming queue, using the same file name.
> >
> > Once it's there, will it take the same path as the initial mail (on
> > HOLD) wo
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:35:14PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Consider using RSYNC to COPY the file from the hold queue to the
> > incoming queue, using the same file name.
>
> Once it's there, will it take the same path as the initial mail (on
> HOLD) would have taken?
No, because only
> In particular, if a bounce is caused by a downstream MTA rejecting
> an email because it's too large, then that's an unavoidable bounce.
> But it's also unlikely to be backscatter
In my case it was one of the most reasons why my server acted as a
backscatterer.
I'm my own only customer. And I understand risks of disabling bounce
feature. I understand that someone will not get a notification if his
email will not be delivered to me, but I can live with it.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:52:22PM +0400, Vasy
On 22/07/2010 16:29, Eray Aslan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:52:22PM +04
If the amount of backscatter is small, do not change behaviour. But
accept the fact that (prepare for) you might get blacklisted in the
future.
If that is not acceptable, stop forwarding mail to domains that you do
n
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:52:22PM +0400, Vasya Pupkin wrote:
> You of course understand that this is not possible, right?
Yes, I am sure he does. That was sarcasm. Anyway,
If the amount of backscatter is small, do not change behaviour. But
accept the fact that (prepare for) you might get blac
Sometimes the downstream MX has a 'special cookbook' of super secret
anti-spam body checks, and you will always have this problem.
Vasya Pupkin wrote (on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:37:26PM +0400):
> It is already as restrictive as possible and acceptable for me. I do
> not want to loose any non-spam
In my experience, ALL the NDRs I've ever seen are useless - if mail is
bad, it should be REJECTed, otherwise the system is breaking down
somewhere.
Is there a way to just drop bounces on the floor?
Vasya Pupkin wrote (on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:52:22PM +0400):
> You of course understand that this
You of course understand that this is not possible, right?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Vasya Pupkin:
>> I'm doing best I can to fight spam.
>
> Then you will have to predict what mail will be rejected down-stream.
> Let me know when you solve that problem :-)
>
>
I just got an idea to use smtp_header_checks to discard mail from
postmas...@mydomain.tld which is used for bounce emails. I hope it
will work.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Vasya Pupkin wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> First, I have spent two days reading articles and searchi
Vasya Pupkin wrote:
Hello.
First, I have spent two days reading articles and searching web for
solution but failed there. I am using postfix as an mx for my domains,
it accpets mail for different addresses withing my domains which is
then forwarded to other external domains, i.e. google.com and
It is already as restrictive as possible and acceptable for me. I do
not want to loose any non-spam mail as well, so I am not going insane
adding network block based rbl domains, but I am using most reliable
rbl domains, including zen.spamhaus.org, bl.spamcop.net,
cbl.abuseat.org, b.barracudacentra
I'm doing best I can to fight spam. What I described happens with spam
that pierced through all filters. There is no 100% way to detect spam
and you know that. So, some percentage will still go through and will
be forwarded, and possibly rejected, causing bounce to be generated.
On Thu, Jul 22, 20
Vasya Pupkin wrote:
> Hello.
>
> First, I have spent two days reading articles and searching web for
> solution but failed there. I am using postfix as an mx for my domains,
> it accpets mail for different addresses withing my domains which is
> then forwarded to other external domains, i.e. googl
Vasya Pupkin:
> Hello.
>
> First, I have spent two days reading articles and searching web for
> solution but failed there. I am using postfix as an mx for my domains,
> it accpets mail for different addresses withing my domains which is
> then forwarded to other external domains, i.e. google.com
Hello.
First, I have spent two days reading articles and searching web for
solution but failed there. I am using postfix as an mx for my domains,
it accpets mail for different addresses withing my domains which is
then forwarded to other external domains, i.e. google.com and other
mail services. M
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > > Postfix queue files should not have multiple hard links.
> > >
> > > Consider using RSYNC to COPY the file from the hold queue to the
> > > incoming queue, using the same file name.
> >
> > Once it's there, will it take the same path as the initial mail (on
> > HOLD) wo
* Jerry :
> Exim, supposedly, has a "-bt" option that when combined with the debug
> flag option produces a detailed routing output useful for debugging.
> How would one go about duplicating that in Postfix?
sendmail -bv ?
p...@rick
--
All technical questions asked privately will be automatic
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 04:50 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 7/22/2010 2:11 AM:
> > * Stan Hoeppner :
> >> Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM:
> >>> Ram:
> One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays
> the mails to other s
Exim, supposedly, has a "-bt" option that when combined with the debug
flag option produces a detailed routing output useful for debugging.
How would one go about duplicating that in Postfix?
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u...@seibercom.net
__
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> * Wietse Venema :
> > Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > > I can put a mail on HOLD and release it later with the postsuper command.
> > > That's great for debugging purposes, but only if I need to send the
> > > message
> > > just once.
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to expand the
* Wietse Venema :
> Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > I can put a mail on HOLD and release it later with the postsuper command.
> > That's great for debugging purposes, but only if I need to send the message
> > just once.
> >
> > Would it be possible to expand the postsuper command with an optional
> > c
Sahil Tandon:
> Time of death on Thu, Jul 22: 01:57:34 UTC
>
> END OF THREAD. Please? :-)
Yes. I was posting that when my hotel's internet connection broke.
TRESPASSERS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST.
Wietse
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> I can put a mail on HOLD and release it later with the postsuper command.
> That's great for debugging purposes, but only if I need to send the message
> just once.
>
> Would it be possible to expand the postsuper command with an optional command
> line parameter that releas
Kai Krakow:
> Bas,
>
> why should that make a difference if it was already proven that
> changing the optimization level of the compiler fixes the issue, and
> that it is probably a special corner case of hardened gcc3.4? I
> suppose it has to do with it's stack protecting techniques etc.
That is
On 22/07/2010 11:54, Denis BUCHER wrote:
Dear all,
After hours of reading websites and this mailing list, and after many
unsuccessful tries, I would be happy if someone could help me.
I want to allow some incoming networks to be allowed to connect to our
servers and all the rest to be blocked.
> Jul 21 12:11:26 smtpd[31280]: connect from
> mail-ww0-f46.google.com[74.125.82.46]
> Jul 21 12:11:26 smtpd[31280]: 2E..36:
> client=mail-ww0-f46.google.com[74.125.82.46]
> Jul 21 12:11:26 cleanup[31284]: 2E..36: message-id=
> Jul 21 12:11:34 smtpd[31280]: warning: 2E..36: queue file size limit
Le 22.07.2010 12:58, Christoph Anton Mitterer a écrit :
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:54 +0200, Denis BUCHER wrote:
4. But now when I try a "telnet (this machine) 25" from 213.213.213.213
I get "Welcome" and I am not rejected ?
Could someone tell me what I did wrong ?
Check http://www.postfix.org/S
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:54 +0200, Denis BUCHER wrote:
> 4. But now when I try a "telnet (this machine) 25" from 213.213.213.213
> I get "Welcome" and I am not rejected ?
>
> Could someone tell me what I did wrong ?
Check http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html#timing which tells
you _whe
Dear all,
After hours of reading websites and this mailing list, and after many
unsuccessful tries, I would be happy if someone could help me.
I want to allow some incoming networks to be allowed to connect to our
servers and all the rest to be blocked.
This is the solution that I ended wit
Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 7/22/2010 2:11 AM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM:
>>> Ram:
One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays
the mails to other servers.
Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I
I can put a mail on HOLD and release it later with the postsuper command.
That's great for debugging purposes, but only if I need to send the message
just once.
Would it be possible to expand the postsuper command with an optional command
line parameter that releases the message, but does not dele
Hi,
> [rewrite sender envelope address only]
I just got it working using canonical mapping and canonical_classes.
Regards,
M. Braun
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
I've got a local mail server that is responsible for delivering all my
mail to the recipients. It does this by forwarding it to the strato
mailserver using smtp authentication. As I do have accounts with
different providers, my mails do have different sender domains. That's
why the strato mail
* Stan Hoeppner :
> Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM:
> > Ram:
> >> One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays
> >> the mails to other servers.
> >> Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I think it is will
> >> be good to mount /var/spool/post
53 matches
Mail list logo
