Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 09:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 7:33 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Congratulations.
Your help was key. Thanks.
> One of the things I really like about Postfix is the remarkably
> complete and accurate documentation.
You forgot a couple of desc
On 2/23/2012 7:33 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Success.
Congratulations.
>
> I note the DISCARD action is now triggered -->
> : Recipient address triggers DISCARD action;
>
> Although I don't specifically see a second DISCARD for the 2nd, 'valid'
> recipient address, it's never delivered.
On 23/02/12 23:32, Matthias Leopold wrote:
> could you give me an example of how to do this?
> right now i'm calling my function like
>
> select function('foo');
> or
> select * from function('foo');
Give more details about what this function does and what output you
expect from it.
Peter
Success.
Changes required were exactly what Noel suggested, getting the mail past
the pre-queue filter.
In informed hindsight, simple to implement.
In main.cf
- virtual_mailbox_maps =
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/vmailboxes.cf
+ virtual_mailbox_maps =
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/sql/vm
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 06:12 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ok, so what's the practical difference between this 'spamtrap' DISCARD
> solution and simply returning a 5xx unknown user for these addresses?
>
> Does this spammer always send to multiple recipients including at least
> one of thes
On 2/23/2012 4:32 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> in the actionable cases I'm considering, the spamtrap addressed -- yes,
> they're 'converted' from prior valid usage -- were unique,
> singly-purposed addresses, given to single vendors for sole usage by
> them. in all cases of documented comprom
On 2/23/2012 5:04 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 4:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> (aka REJECT_DAMMIT)
>
> Oh I like that action. ;) And it's self documenting.
>
> Probably a bit irreverent for Wietse's taste, though. :(
>
after this thread he may consider it.
On 2/23/2012 4:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> (aka REJECT_DAMMIT)
Oh I like that action. ;) And it's self documenting.
Probably a bit irreverent for Wietse's taste, though. :(
--
Stan
Hello
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:36 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > cat /etc/postfix/spamtrap_userparts
> > test1
> > test2
> > test3
> > postmap /etc/postfix/spamtrap_userparts
> Wrong format; table entries must have a result. In this specific
> case, postfix doesn't
On 2/23/2012 4:25 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:46 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 3:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> The check_recipient_access with DISCARD is probably easiest, but the
>> spamtrap address must be accepted by the pre-filter postfix.
>
>
Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > So IIUC, I need to RE-add the list of spamtraps in the has table as
> > valid users (removed as valid after known to be compromised ...) so
> > that, rather than being off-hand rejected as an unkonw/non-existent
> > user@domain,
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:11 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Prior to its compromise, it was verifiable as an existing & valid
> > "user@domain" in the virtual user/domain (sql) lookup tables.
>
> If this was at one time an actual address to a mailbox in which someone
> received legit mail
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:46 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 3:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> The check_recipient_access with DISCARD is probably easiest, but the
> spamtrap address must be accepted by the pre-filter postfix.
Looking for the most straightforward place to do this, in my m
On 2/23/2012 3:55 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Hello Noel,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:31 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> (sorry, had to work for a while)
>
> No worries. Nice to have someone reasonable to chat with. Bit of a dry
> spell on that. It's appreciated.
>
>> On 2/23/2012 2:58 P
On 2/23/2012 10:28 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> I have a list of compromised addresses. For the sake of this
> discussion, let it include, e.g., "s...@myserver.com".
>
> Prior to its compromise, it was verifiable as an existing & valid
> "user@domain" in the virtual user/domain (sql) lookup
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 03:46:49PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 3:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:58:46PM -0800, rg86...@airpost.net
> > wrote:
>
> > snip
> >>> Here's another thought, which I think someone else mentioned
> >>> upthread: you could PREPEND a spec
On 2/23/2012 3:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> I was unaware of the fact that you can't REJECT connections containing
> multiple recipients. Does this depend on the type of check*access, or
> is this global? If global, wouldn't this pretty much make the REJECT
> action useless, as spammers coul
Hello rob
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > Based on that, my current understanding of my config is that
> > email is received by postscreen,
>
> No, postscreen receives no mail. It receives a connection,
> identifies it as legitimate, and passes that connection on to smtpd
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 10:32 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you are not asking ONE question, you are trying to misuse a
> mailing-list as replacment read all available docs and
> using google
misuse? consider yourself ignored -- and prattle on all you wish. not
a peep more will be heard from you
Hello Noel,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:31 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> (sorry, had to work for a while)
No worries. Nice to have someone reasonable to chat with. Bit of a dry
spell on that. It's appreciated.
> On 2/23/2012 2:58 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Ah, a different server. Importan
On 2/23/2012 8:53 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:06:34AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 2:34 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
>>> I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue
>>> filter.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtr
On 2/23/2012 3:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:58:46PM -0800, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
>
> snip
>>> Here's another thought, which I think someone else mentioned
>>> upthread: you could PREPEND a special header, then handle that in
>>> your content filter.
>>>
>>> s...@mail.
On 2/23/2012 3:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> 4) Configure the spamtrap reject rule with the Postfix SMTP
> daemon that listens on 192.168.1.10.
but he's trying to DISCARD mail to the spamtrap in a post-filter
listener. That's the listener on 127.0.0.1:10026
The problem to solve is the spamtrap m
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:58:46PM -0800, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:28 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > sendmail(1) writes mail to a file which is enqueued by the
> > pickup(8) daemon. smtpd(8) is not used. smtpd-specific settings
> > such as smtpd_sender_restrictions are i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Let's lighten up here. They guy asked a fairly simple and
legitimate question and has gotten a bunch of crap from folks who
either didn't read his question or didn't understand what he was
trying to do.
I would like to think we are collectively bet
rg86...@airpost.net:
> > If you want to reject the spamtrap address while connected to 192.168.1.10
>
> As I've said repeatedly -- I'm not wedded to a method. Just the
> outcome. I'm looking to others, here, to advise what the best approach
> is to achive my clearly stated goals.
>
> > then you
Am 23.02.2012 22:28, schrieb rg86...@airpost.net:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:13 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> You are not listening.
>
> Actually, I am. And I'm hearing contradcitions, incorrect advice, and
> downright snyde comments.
>
> Your presumption that message sent == message receive
(sorry, had to work for a while)
On 2/23/2012 2:58 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:28 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> sendmail(1) writes mail to a file which is enqueued by the pickup(8)
>> daemon. smtpd(8) is not used. smtpd-specific settings such as
>> smtpd_sender_rest
Cool, will do .. and attempt both.
Thanks
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:06:07PM -0500, lance raymond wrote:
>
> > ok, but my 1st issue is I am 99% sure that 25 is blocked at the primary
> FW,
> > so I am guessing they could be getting to th
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:06:07PM -0500, lance raymond wrote:
> ok, but my 1st issue is I am 99% sure that 25 is blocked at the primary FW,
> so I am guessing they could be getting to the webservers, using something
> there which is allowed to send to the public IP of the mailserver (there on
> d
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 04:13 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> You are not listening.
Actually, I am. And I'm hearing contradcitions, incorrect advice, and
downright snyde comments.
Your presumption that message sent == message received, however, is
rather flawed.
> I believe some serious book-lear
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 03:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> You have the spamtrap address configured on 127.0.0.1, but you
> telnet to 192.168.1.10, and then you are surprised that the SMTP
> server on 192.168.1.10 does not know about the spamtrap address.
Frakly, I'm not suprised by a thing. I'm s
*Update* I did get that ruleset up and allowed ONLY the webservers 25, and
started it up. I tested by trying to telnet into 25 from the FW itself and
got nothing. Telnet from the webservers and got right in. While that was
going, mail was still flying by, so yes something webserver wise is being
On 2012-02-23 3:58 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
This clearly invokes postfix on the desktop machine, and sends it to the
server,
@ my desktop's log,
tail -f /var/log/mail
Feb 23 11:51:52 desk postfix/pickup[19611]: 986C040083: uid=1000
from=
You are not listening.
Yes, it
ok, but my 1st issue is I am 99% sure that 25 is blocked at the primary FW,
so I am guessing they could be getting to the webservers, using something
there which is allowed to send to the public IP of the mailserver (there on
different networks).
I can try to patch over and use only the private, b
lance raymond:
> Feb 23 15:23:55 notices postfix/smtpd[539]: disconnect from
> unknown[publicIP]
Postfix has received a connection on the public IP address.
> Feb 23 15:23:55 notices postfix/qmgr[7445]: 8477291A158: from=<
> supp...@cashbullets.com>, size=3206, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Postfix has
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:28 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> sendmail(1) writes mail to a file which is enqueued by the pickup(8)
> daemon. smtpd(8) is not used. smtpd-specific settings such as
> smtpd_sender_restrictions are irrelevant in this mode of submission.
Yes, it does that locally. I am sendin
I am getting complaints about outbound mail going into spam, yahoo is
complaining about deferring mail, and I am seeing a lot of odd messages in
the mail.log file, will give examples shortly.
We use google enterprise for our corporate domain to receive so the inhouse
mail server is used for the we
rg86...@airpost.net:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - -
> > > smtpd
> > >...
> > >-o
> > >
> > > smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:31:53AM -0800, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
Noel:
> > > The various smtpd_*_restrictions only work with mail
> > > submitted via SMTP.
>
> Even though I still don't understand why the sendmail session I
> desc
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 02:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - -
> > smtpd
> > ...
> > -o
> >
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
>
> This has a spamtrap on 127
Alex:
> I've removed the zen and psbl queries from smtpd and moved psbl to postscreen.
>
> How can I monitor the number of smtpd processes currently being
> utilized in real-time? Even though it's set to 300, "ps ax" shows
Now that postscreen is taking most of the bullets, the number of
smtpd pro
> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - -
> smtpd
>...
>-o
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
This has a spamtrap on 127.0.0.1.
>
> and
>
> cat /etc/postfix/spamtrap
>
Hi,
>>> I have a postfix-2.8.7 system with fedora15 and amavisd-new-2.6.6.
>>> Lately I have been experiencing significant delays before receiving
>>> the initial postfix 220 greeting from all remote hosts. I've verified
>>
>> What is the output from:
>>
>> grep warning: /var/log/maillog
>>
>>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 08:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > I'm sending my test mail using postfix/sendmail from my desktop to the
> > mail server. Doesn't that qualify as "submitted via SMTP"?
>
> SMTP = Simple mail Transfer Protocol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol
Am 23.02.2012 20:06, schrieb rg86...@airpost.net:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 12:11 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
>>>
>>> sendmail -i -t
>>> From: ro...@deskmail.rogermail.lan
>>> To: ro...@mail.rogermail.lan,s...@mail.
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> > The various smtpd_*_restrictions only work with mail submitted via SMTP.
Even though I still don't understand why the sendmail session I
described isn't "mail submitted via SMTP", I tried a different method of
testing. Usin
Hello there,
First of all I tell you that this is my first postfix installation so
please be patient...
I have following scenario:
fetchmail --> postfix --> amavis-new --> postfix --> exchange 2010.
Everything -except exchange ;-)- runs on an opensuse 12.1 box.
Now, I have a list of domains ent
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 12:11 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> >
> > sendmail -i -t
> > From: ro...@deskmail.rogermail.lan
> > To: ro...@mail.rogermail.lan,s...@mail.rogermail.lan
> > Subject: test
> >
On 2/23/2012 12:11 PM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
>
> sendmail -i -t
> From: ro...@deskmail.rogermail.lan
> To: ro...@mail.rogermail.lan,s...@mail.rogermail.lan
> Subject: test
> testing
The various smtpd_*_restrictions only work with
Hello,
On 02/23/2012 08:55 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> smtpd_sender_restrictions=
>
> Yes, that's where it goes unless you've (unwisely) set
> smtpd_delay_reject=no.
I have not set that.
>> and
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions=
>
> That works too, but needs additional settings. Simpler
Wietse:
> Agreed. rejecting mail that hits a spamtrap would require a
> flag that is raised before DATA time, and that is tested at
> DATA time.
/dev/rob0:
> I'm still not clear on why a REJECT (or any other valid access(5)
> result, DISCARD included) wouldn't work with a check_policy_service
>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:28:05AM -0800,
rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 06:53 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > I see the goal as being, in part, to detect a spammer in THIS
> > transaction. That sounds reasonable to me. But the proper thing
> > here would be to use a policy service in smt
On 2/23/2012 10:28 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On 02/23/2012 05:57 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> You can use an access map in the reinjection listener:
>>
>> # master.cf
>> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - - smtpd
>> ...
>> -o
>> smtpd_sender_restr
Hello everyone,
On 02/23/2012 05:57 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> You can use an access map in the reinjection listener:
>
> # master.cf
> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - - smtpd
> ...
> -o
> smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/spamtrap
I mo
Hi Wietse,
Thanks for clarification. Now I got it. so if the mail address where the
archive mail should go is arch...@example.com then the in the
/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc: it would be the following right?
/^(.*)@(.*)/archive+$1=$2...@example.com
On 2/23/2012 9:41 PM, Wietse Ven
Janantha Marasinghe:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> Thanks for the swift response!
>
> 1. recipient_bcc maps is only does inbound mail right ? I have to set
> sender_bcc as well to catch the outbound?
Postfix has no concept of inbound or outbound mail. It receives
mail and gives it to the delivery agent that
Hi Wietse,
Thanks for the swift response!
1. recipient_bcc maps is only does inbound mail right ? I have to set
sender_bcc as well to catch the outbound?
2. bcc+$1=$2...@example.com is not clear for me. basically i have setup
another e-mail address to which primary postfix should send the arch
Janantha Marasinghe:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I'm currently using always_bcc to archive inbound and outbound of my
> postfix server. What do I have to do to preserve the original envelope
> of the e-mails sent? I search the mailinglist archive at postfix users
> but couldnt find a clear solution.
U
/dev/rob0:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I have changed postscreen DNSBL "reject" logging, so that it now
> > gives credit to the DNSBL with the largest weight, instead of the
> > DNSBL that replies first. I think that the result resembles more
> > what some p
Dear Friends,
I'm currently using always_bcc to archive inbound and outbound of my
postfix server. What do I have to do to preserve the original envelope
of the e-mails sent? I search the mailinglist archive at postfix users
but couldnt find a clear solution.
Thanks
Jay
Noel Jones:
> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Pretty simple. I'm left wondering why/how you came up with the method
> > you describe above. Nobody does it that way. This leads me to believe
> > you don't really understand what a spamtrap is.
>
> REJECT doesn't really help with mu
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I have changed postscreen DNSBL "reject" logging, so that it now
> gives credit to the DNSBL with the largest weight, instead of the
> DNSBL that replies first. I think that the result resembles more
> what some people expected to see
On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Pretty simple. I'm left wondering why/how you came up with the method
> you describe above. Nobody does it that way. This leads me to believe
> you don't really understand what a spamtrap is.
REJECT doesn't really help with multi-recipient mail.
To
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:06:34AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 2:34 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> > I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue
> > filter.
> >
> > I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtrap address
> > is in ANY of the recipien
On 2/23/2012 7:03 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> We receive alot of spam from a single IP address using multiple helo's.
And the reason you don't simply ban the IP address is?
--
Stan
On 2/23/2012 2:34 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue filter.
>
> I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtrap address is in
> ANY of the recipients, then delivery of the message to ALL recipients is
> quietly DISCARDED.
Thi
On 2/23/2012 2:34 AM, rg86...@airpost.net wrote:
> I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue filter.
>
> I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtrap address is in
> ANY of the recipients, then delivery of the message to ALL recipients is
> quietly DISCARDED.
You
Tom Kinghorn:
> Good afternoon list
>
> In Postfix, is it possible to use memcache to store IP & helo infomation
> for a helo_access ?
There are only three tables where Postfix "stores" information:
- postscreen whitelist cache
- address verification cache
- TLS session key cache
All other Pos
Good afternoon list
In Postfix, is it possible to use memcache to store IP & helo infomation
for a helo_access ?
We receive alot of spam from a single IP address using multiple helo's.
I would like to check the helo name against the memcache entry.
If it does not match, then REJECT / DISCARD.
Am 2012-02-23 00:42, schrieb Peter:
On 23/02/12 05:30, Matthias Leopold wrote:
how do i make a postgres plperl function return a value/row only when
certain conditions are met and otherwise return "nothing"/void/0 rows?
right now my function returns "1 row" even when i return undef.
Have you t
I'm building a Postfix server with postscreen & a before-queue filter.
I'm trying to get spamtraps working so that if a spamtrap address is in
ANY of the recipients, then delivery of the message to ALL recipients is
quietly DISCARDED.
Seems my misreading/misunderstanding of posts has me a bit con
72 matches
Mail list logo
