Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:51 Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > For further help, follow up with configuration details as requested by > others. The best advice for this dummy (me) was to check the firewall. I still had a block on port 25 left from an aborted attempt to

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 8/28/2017 3:18 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: >> usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're >> barking >> up the wrong tree here. ;-) > > and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks Assuming your users neither use

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Ralph Seichter skrev den 2017-08-28 22:05: usually score with deep negative values in SpamAssassin. You're barking up the wrong tree here. ;-) and Reply-To: is safe to remove in smtp_header_checks since its not default dkim signed its not safe to remove in header_checks, if remotes sign it

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

On 28.08.17 17:42, Rick van Rein wrote: > I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been > wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by > using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. The Postfix mailing list is "friendly" already. It does not break DKIM

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Rick van Rein skrev den 2017-08-28 19:09: Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. i noted that it's

Re: Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Interestingly, This list is a modest exception -- DKIM should pass through it perfectly, mostly because it does not change the Subject: From: To: or body. But the question was about soundness of the general Reply-To: idea anyway. -Rick

Re: showing an recipient that doesn't receive the mail

An MTA only looks at the envelope To for routing.  You can put anything you want in the message To header, so you could rewrite it any way you need to. On 8/28/2017 12:04 PM, Nils wrote: Hi,     when composing an email, can I assign the header value "To" in a way that it is shown by the

Re: showing an recipient that doesn't receive the mail

On 8/28/2017 11:04 AM, Nils wrote: > Hi, > >     when composing an email, can I assign the header value "To" in a > way that it is shown by the email client but ignored by postfix? > >     I've created a php-cronjob for a customer, that fetches mails > from an imap box (mta is postfix),

Re: postfix log in mysql

You might want to look into something like the Logstash (https://www.elastic.co/products/logstash). James > On Aug 27, 2017, at 9:51 PM, Kev wrote: > > Hi postfixers, > > We have spam filter servers for our down, 5 of them to be exact. we use > amavisd,

Re: prioritization in qmgr scheduler

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:53:11PM +0300, Deniss wrote: > > If the destination domain is yours and the senders are remote > > untrusted clients, then indeed "default_transport" won't do > > unless you're a backup MX host (in that case it is possible > > to allow relaying for the domain via

showing an recipient that doesn't receive the mail

Hi,     when composing an email, can I assign the header value "To" in a way that it is shown by the email client but ignored by postfix?     I've created a php-cronjob for a customer, that fetches mails from an imap box (mta is postfix), recomposes them and forwards them to a list of

Lists and spam prevention / use of Reply-To:

Hi, I've been studying SPF, DKIM, DMARC and a bit of ARC. And I've been wondering if a list [including this one] could be more friendly by using Reply-To: to hold the message sender. These spam-fighting methods have the greatest difficulty with email forwarding and lists because: - changes to

Re: prioritization in qmgr scheduler

On 2017.08.28. 17:36, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> but only when the destination domain is not a "relay" domain or >>> similar, that is, only if mail for the destination in questin just >>> goes whereever the MX records point with no transport overrides >>> beyond

Re: antispam gateway rejecting unknown mailbox

On 8/27/2017 6:05 PM, joao reis wrote: > Hi, > > I have a postfix server with antispam milter and policy daemons > forwarding messages to various distinct remote servers. It works > very well, all messages for the configured domains are forwarded > using smtp / lmtp transport to each server. > >

Re: prioritization in qmgr scheduler

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:46:19PM +0300, Deniss wrote: > > You could use: > > > > > > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#sender_dependent_default_transport_maps > > > > but only when the destination domain is not a "relay" domain or > > similar, that is, only if mail for the

Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:06:39AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote: > There was a temporary problem delivering your message to > tbro...@novco1968tbs.com. Gmail will retry for 46 more hours. You'll be > notified if the delivery fails permanently. > > Learn more here:

Re: prioritization in qmgr scheduler

On 2017.08.25. 18:20, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > Yes, but ... > >> relay_transport = smtp:backend > > On MX gateway hosts that receive inbound mail, use "relay:..." not > "smtp:..." for your relay transport, and let outbound mail from > your system use "smtp". This reduces contention between

Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 01:35:12PM +, Tom Browder wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:22 Ralph Seichter > wrote: ... > > > Please study http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html for starters. > > I had studied it and have done up through verbose messages with -

Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:06:39AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote: > My remote postfix installation can send but not receive, and I'm > sure I have a bad setting somewhere. When sending to the remote > server, from my personal gmail account I finally get a response > from gmail as shown in the

Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:22 Ralph Seichter wrote: ... > Please study http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html for starters. I had studied it and have done up through verbose messages with - v but saw nothing. However, I forgot about the peer setting which is

Re: Can send but not receive

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:06:39 -0500, Tom Browder stated: >My remote postfix installation can send but not receive, and I'm sure >I have a bad setting somewhere. When sending to the remote server, >from my personal gmail account I finally get a response from gmail as >shown in the attached file. >

Re: Can send but not receive

On 28.08.17 15:06, Tom Browder wrote: > I can put my main.cf, master.cf in a github gist if there is any > interest. My mail logs are not interesting at all, at least to me, > but I am happy to put one or more of them on github, too. Please study http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html for

Can send but not receive

My remote postfix installation can send but not receive, and I'm sure I have a bad setting somewhere. When sending to the remote server, from my personal gmail account I finally get a response from gmail as shown in the attached file. I can put my main.cf, master.cf in a github gist if there is

Re: postfix/postqueue[5742]: panic: vbuf_print: output for \%s\ exceeds space 0

A. Schulze: > > wietse: > > > A. Schulze: > >> postqueue: panic: vbuf_print: output for '%s' exceeds space 0 > > > > this is pfqgrep: > >$mailq = "/usr/sbin/postqueue -p |"; # added 'strace -f' here >open(MAILQ, $mailq) or die; >while () { > # read from STDIN >} > >

Re: postfix/postqueue[5742]: panic: vbuf_print: output for \%s\ exceeds space 0

A. Schulze: > > wietse: > > > A. Schulze: > >> postqueue: panic: vbuf_print: output for '%s' exceeds space 0 OK, now please (install and) use ltrace. This provides more details what happens in postqueue itself (strace gives insight into system calls, i.e. the postqueue-kernel interface).

Re: postfix/postqueue[5742]: panic: vbuf_print: output for \%s\ exceeds space 0

wietse: A. Schulze: postqueue: panic: vbuf_print: output for '%s' exceeds space 0 this is pfqgrep: $mailq = "/usr/sbin/postqueue -p |"; # added 'strace -f' here open(MAILQ, $mailq) or die; while () { # read from STDIN } execve("/usr/sbin/postqueue", ["/usr/sbin/postqueue",