Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Take a step back. Please describe the problem (why extra copies
>>> of mail) instead of the solution (alias feature that excludes the
>>> sender).
>>
>> I don't know how to better describe the problem. Maybe the following:
>>
>> John is a new junior employee in a company
Apologies for the misfire. Here's a real post. :)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:41:08AM +0100, David Renstrom wrote:
> I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dovecot using virtual
> mailboxes. I'm now trying to get mailman to work together with
> Postfix which has turned out to be harder than I
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:41:08AM +0100, David Renstrom wrote:
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 03:41:08 +0100
> From: David Renstrom
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Relay access denied problem
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
>
> Hi,
>
> I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dove
Hi,
I've set up a mail server with Postfix and Dovecot using virtual mailboxes.
I'm now trying to get mailman to work together with Postfix which has turned
out to be harder than I thought. :(
Postfix always logs the error "Relay access denied" when mailman is trying
to deliver an email to a list
Reindl Harald:
> Am 06.03.2012 02:41, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > Reindl Harald:
> >> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
> >> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
> >>
> >> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
> >
> > RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or dom
Am 06.03.2012 02:41, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Reindl Harald:
>> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
>> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
>>
>> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
>
> RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or domain, or
> in any message head
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:26:18PM +0100, Robert Dahlem wrote:
> I'm on Postfix 2.5.6 and implementing TLS. I'm having difficulties to
> understand the difference between "verify" and "secure".
These are documented in TLS_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#client_tls_veri
Reindl Harald:
> i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
> rejecting "frankkr?t...@example.com"
>
> AFAIK ??? are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
RFC5321/22 do not allow non-ASCII in the localpart or domain, or
in any message header. All encodings of non-ASCII in domains and
header valu
hi
i am not sure if my validation is up-to-date in
rejecting "frankkröt...@example.com"
AFAIK üöä are only allowed in DOMAIN name (IDN)
this moment got a notify that a address with this
localpart was removed from a newsletter table where
validation at input-time seems to be missing
signatur
Ben Rosengart:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Ben Rosengart:
> > > > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > > > form to that specific external form.
> > >
> > > So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport
On 3/5/2012 5:53 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Is it possible to:
>
> 1. Rewrite the sender based on the destination? Particular example
> - using a fax-to-email service, only one email address is allowed to
> be used. So I want any message addressed TO
> "xxx...@faxpeople.com" to be sent F
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ben Rosengart:
> > > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > > form to that specific external form.
> >
> > So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport x and
> > x_generic_maps, a
Is it possible to:
1. Rewrite the sender based on the destination? Particular example -
using a fax-to-email service, only one email address is allowed to be
used. So I want any message addressed TO "xxx...@faxpeople.com" to
be sent FROM "designatedu...@mydomain.com" (from a valid clien
On 2012-03-05 santosh malavade wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access,
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access
> reject
Rob already said all there is to say about this. Fix it.
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.1/8 , 192.168.40.0/
On 3/5/2012 1:44 PM, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on users)
> and that this is probably the government who ordered that. This is
> Europe (Poland) but do you think su
Wietse Venema:
> In summary, there are two orthogonal features that should not be
> mixed up:
>
> - routine logging, which currently does not exist for permit actions.
> This requires one-time infrastructure code for "permit" logging,
> and calls to that infrastructure from a half-dozen strategic
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.8.9.html]
Postfix stable release 2.8.9 is available. This contains fixes that
are already part of Postfix 2.9 and 2.10.
* The "change header" milter request could replace the wrong
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:44:57 +0100
Stanisław Findeisen articulated:
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on
> users) and that this is probably the government who ordered that.
> This is Europe (Poland)
2012/3/5 Stanisław Findeisen :
> My bad suspicion is that they are in the process of installing some
> (more or less crappy) mail intercepting facility (i.e. to spy on users)
> and that this is probably the government who ordered that. This is
> Europe (Poland) but do you think such things are unc
On 3/5/2012 2:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
You might do better if you told us what you're trying to do. What
problem are you trying to solve with this?
These checks are rather legacy -- I think probably a general set of
rules from someones posting here once upon a time. This particular check
was blo
On 2012-03-05 15:53, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:12:00AM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen
>>> wrote:
On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 04.03.2012 13
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 02:27:31PM -0500, James Chase wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 1:22 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> >Read the message more closely: 'reject: header From: "ts2"'
> Thanks, I was thinking these two things were separate statements
> but yes of course the From address is of a diff
James Chase:
> OK, I do now see the rule that is blocking this. But shouldn't it be
> possible to create a whitelist of users that overrides this check?
One message can have multiple recipients. Therefore, header_checks
can't be recipient dependent.
Wietse
Ben Rosengart:
> > then use smtp_generic_maps, to convert from the Postfix-canonical
> > form to that specific external form.
>
> So use transport(5)? If I want to rewrite to form x, use transport x and
> x_generic_maps, and then transport y and y_generic_maps for form y, etc?
Yes. I did context
On 3/5/2012 1:22 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Read the message more closely: 'reject: header From: "ts2"'
Thanks, I was thinking these two things were separate statements but yes
of course the From address is of a different syntax and appears later in
the output.
Do you have a header
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 01:25:36PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ben Rosengart:
>
> > I understand how to chain smtpd restrictions, but I'm stuck on making
> > canonical(5)ization conditional on the output of the restrictions.
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> If you need to deliver a diff
Robert Dahlem:
> 366AE26E2B: to=, relay=s2.mydomain.de[192.168.1.1]:25,
> ..., dsn=4.7.5, status=deferred (Server certificate not verified)
> ==
>
> So my understanding of the difference between "verify" and "secure"
> seems to be wro
On Monday, March 5, 2012, 12:06:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Rod Dorman:
>> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
>> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
>> > explain why the ISP
Hi,
I'm on Postfix 2.5.6 and implementing TLS. I'm having difficulties to
understand the difference between "verify" and "secure".
What I've got on the client side:
/etc/hosts:
192.168.1.1 s2.mydomain.de
/etc/postfix/main.cf
disable_dns_lookups = yes
smtp_tls_loglevel =
Ben Rosengart:
> Dear postfix-users,
> I'm looking at implementing a tricky policy, of rewriting sender
> address conditionally on a combination of the client's IP address, and
> the result of a map lookup of the return-path (in LDAP, as it happens).
>
> I understand how to chain smtpd restricti
On 3/5/2012 1:08 PM, James Chase wrote:
> Is there any postfix configuration that will allow rejected mail to be
> viewed or mail from a certain user to be saved despite reject/accept
> status for debugging? Postfix is blocking an incoming message saying
>
> mx1 postfix/cleanup[7139]: 6F3FBE4079:
Is there any postfix configuration that will allow rejected mail to be
viewed or mail from a certain user to be saved despite reject/accept
status for debugging? Postfix is blocking an incoming message saying
mx1 postfix/cleanup[7139]: 6F3FBE4079: reject: header From: "ts2"
from mta319.sina.
Dear postfix-users,
I'm looking at implementing a tricky policy, of rewriting sender
address conditionally on a combination of the client's IP address, and
the result of a map lookup of the return-path (in LDAP, as it happens).
I understand how to chain smtpd restrictions, but I'm stuck on makin
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:06:26AM -0600, I wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0500, Rod Dorman wrote:
> > On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > > complaints and implemented this redirection u
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0500, Rod Dorman wrote:
> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > ...
> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> > explain why the ISP would not know.
Rod Dorman:
> On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > ...
> > Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> > complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> > explain why the ISP would not know.
>
> I would be horrified is this turned out to
On Monday, March 5, 2012, 09:53:31, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> ...
> Another WAG: maybe your ISP's upstream provider got tired of
> complaints and implemented this redirection upstream. This would
> explain why the ISP would not know.
I would be horrified is this turned out to be the cause.
Without dee
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:12:00AM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen
> > wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >>> On 04.03.2012 13:30, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> On
Please do not top-post your replies. Thank you.
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:23:51PM +0530, santosh malavade wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ansgar Wiechers
> wrote:
> > On 2012-02-28 santosh malavade wrote:
> > > In my mail server, i have enabled sender access using the
> > > following p
On 2012-03-04 17:14, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> On 2012-03-04 11:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> On 04.03.2012 13:30, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
On 2012-03-04 09:20, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> I am running a small Postfix ser
Hi,
Sorry, I have taken long to reply ...
Here is my postconf output :
mailgate:~ # postconf -n
canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
debug_peer_list = 173.225.251.221
di
41 matches
Mail list logo
