On Behalf Of Simon
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
mail-in2.{ourdomain}.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038A71278B for
david@{ourdomain}.net; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:21:11 +1300 (NZDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail-in2.{ourdomain}.net
Received: from
Am 22.03.2011 17:34, schrieb J4K:
Hi there,
I had two milters running on postfix: dkim-filter, spamass-milter.
Both of these worked fine.
I have added the clamav-milter to the config, but I noticed that now
the spamass-milter does not 'seem' to do anything.
System set-up:
* Frank Bonnet f.bon...@esiee.fr:
Hello
I want to discard one address before it will be send
on our smtp outgoing server ( problem with some infected PCs )
Which statement should I use to do so ?
...
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/notbremse
...
containing:
f.bon...@esiee.fr
Am 23.03.2011 11:19, schrieb Frank Bonnet:
Hello
I want to discard one address before it will be send
on our smtp outgoing server ( problem with some infected PCs )
Which statement should I use to do so ?
Thanks a lot
if you have infected machines you should block them on the
Am 22.03.2011 22:53, schrieb Simon Brereton:
The number of javascript email input validations that wouldn't allow + as a
valid character (particularly the banks) forced me to change
[recipient_delimiter] to - without any dire consequences...
Possibly not but some environments are fond of
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i wrote:
if /^Message-Id: (.*)@prefix.*\.domain\.tld$/ REPLACE Message-Id:
Andrea Di Mario:
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i wrote:
if /^Message-Id: (.*)@prefix.*\.domain\.tld$/
* Andrea Di Mario andrea.dima...@speakage.com:
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i wrote:
if /^Message-Id:
Am 23.03.2011 14:19, schrieb Andrea Di Mario:
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
Message-Id header and i wrote:
if /^Message-Id:
Zitat von Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de:
Am 23.03.2011 14:19, schrieb Andrea Di Mario:
Hi, I've a relay server that receives emails from some other. For some
of these servers, that have a particular prefix, i wrote some
header_checks' rules to change header, now i want rewrite the
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Andree
Subject: Re: Address Tagging in Postfix?
Am 22.03.2011 22:53, schrieb Simon Brereton:
The number of javascript email input validations that wouldn't
allow + as a valid character
# mailq | tail
-- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
# postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
TOTAL 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 074
--
Ralf
* Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
# mailq | tail
-- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
# postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280
1280+
TOTAL 74
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:26PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
It should probably handle old and new IDs precisely, but this makes it
work for me:
--- postfix-2.9-20110320/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl2007-03-08
15:39:42.0 +0100
+++
Ralf Hildebrandt:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
* Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
# mailq | tail
-- 2954 Kbytes in 421 Requests.
# postfix-2.9-20110321/auxiliary/qshape/qshape.pl active deferred hold
T 5 10 20 40 80
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email
is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses
receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
On debian lenny, postfix version is: 2.5.5-1.1
# telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to
Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email is
only sent to the rcpt to: address. None
of the Bcc'ed addresses receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
rcpt to: n...@example.com
250 2.1.5 Ok
data
354 End data
Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email
is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses
receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:55:09PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the email is
only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed addresses receive a
copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user
Matthias Andree wrote:
Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See RFC5321 [1]
for an explanation; for delivery, it matters ONLY what's in the
I don't misunderstand in as much that I just barely ever had the need to
use bcc.
RCPT TO:destin@tion.address.example
commands, not
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user interface, they have no meaning
in SMTP, Postfix silently deletes Bcc headers, they are not supposed to
be transmitted from the MUA to the MTA.
How come that postfix treats multiple rcpt to: commands differently
depending on the
Jeroen van Aart:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Bcc headers are part of the MUAs user interface, they have no meaning
in SMTP, Postfix silently deletes Bcc headers, they are not supposed to
be transmitted from the MUA to the MTA.
How come that postfix treats multiple rcpt to: commands
Am 23.03.2011 21:38, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
How come that postfix treats multiple rcpt to: commands differently
depending on the presence of a bcc: header in the data section?
I don't believe that it does that. It's likely some component further
down the delivery path - check the logs.
Reindl Harald wrote:
BCC is a header so why you put it in the mail-body?
Because:
Email header lines are not SMTP commands per se. They are sent in the
DATA stream for a message. Header lines appear on a line by themselves,
and are separated from the body of a message by a blank line.
Am 23.03.2011 21:35, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
Matthias Andree wrote:
Yes - you seem to be misunderstanding how SMTP works. See RFC5321 [1]
for an explanation; for delivery, it matters ONLY what's in the
I don't misunderstand in as much that I just barely ever had the need to
use bcc.
Matthias Andree wrote:
I don't believe that it does that. It's likely some component further
down the delivery path - check the logs.
More a case of PEBCAK, I was looking at the wrong test email in this case.
Greetings,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Matthias Andree wrote:
You may be aware of it, but I don't believe you've got the full picture yet.
Well I'm getting it now, thank you.
The post service doesn't care what Cc: you write on your letters either,
but only looks at the envelope.
Yes, I assumed an MTA may do some extra
I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO: commands to
accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
It's the other way around, actually.
Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
One has to have a clear understanding of the difference between RFC 822
(the message), and RFC 821
On 2011-03-23 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.03.2011 20:55, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
I tried the following in telnet session, but for some reason the
email is only sent to the rcpt to: address. None of the Bcc'ed
addresses receive a copy. Am I missing something obvious?
Yes. Mail servers deliver
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
tuning guides. This would only happen once a week or so. The important
part is the need to
On 03/23/2011 03:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
tuning guides. This would only happen once a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:06:04PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning
guides. This
Am 23.03.2011 23:06, schrieb Jeroen van Aart:
I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one
hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance
tuning guides. This would only happen once a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:19:24PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
Consider server-class SLC SSD if needed
No need. Perfectly ordinary drives with a battery RAID controller will
do just fine. If the messages are 10kB or less, 100/sec gives 1MB/s which
is also not a problem for typical server
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement.
With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS
resolver on the same machine as Postfix? We've got one that's provided
On 03/23/2011 04:49 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement.
With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS
resolver on the same
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote:
IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you
don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns
server; the difference in the lookup times has a big impact when you're
sending
On 03/23/2011 05:22 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joej...@tmsusa.com wrote:
IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you
don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns
server; the difference in the lookup times
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:22:49PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote:
IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host.
If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some
sort of caching dns server; the
Victor Duchovni wrote:
- The destination networks are not throttling your output or
severely limiting your concurrency.
A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and
delivery latencies of those destinations.
Thanks all for some helpful information.
I see
Sorry if i have not explained it correctly in the subject... (Using
postfix 2.5 on debian lenny).
We are testing the ips.backscatterer.org setup on one of our servers
and would like to understand the impact before we implement. Is there
any way we can check the ips.backscatterer.org RBL for the
Michael J Wise wrote:
I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO: commands to
accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
It's the other way around, actually.
Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
Right, good to know. :-)
As a side note, what's the maximum amount of RCPT
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
We are testing the ips.backscatterer.org setup on one of our servers
and would like to understand the impact before we implement. Is there
any way we can check the ips.backscatterer.org RBL for the IP, then
put the message on HOLD - rather
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 18:44:15 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
As a side note, what's the maximum amount of RCPT TO:'s postfix will
accept in one session? Or is this just limited by the amount of
available RAM and/or some kind of session timeout? Or maybe it's
limited by how long the counter
Jeroen van Aart:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
- The destination networks are not throttling your output or
severely limiting your concurrency.
A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and
delivery latencies of those destinations.
Thanks all for some
Jeroen van Aart:
Michael J Wise wrote:
I wasn't aware that I could use multiple RCPT TO: commands to
accomplish Bcc. Hence me adding Bcc after the DATA.
It's the other way around, actually.
Multiple RCPT TO:'s is how Bcc: is done.
Right, good to know. :-)
As a side note, what's
Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
.. [CUT] ..
Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug in
a policy service that returns HOLD for IPs listed on the RBL.
Sahil.. i've a similar need, could you put me
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
.. [CUT] ..
Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug in
a policy service that returns HOLD for IPs
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
.. [CUT] ..
Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:37:45PM +1300, Simon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:04 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
As to how to implement this in postfwd, this is not the right forum
for such a question. http://postfwd.org/ has instructions on how to
join the postfwd-users mailing list.
What a fantastic piece of software!! Thanks :)
51 matches
Mail list logo
