removing postgrey - reconfigring postix

I have been using postgrey for some time, but recently I have seen some posting that indicate that this is not the "best" way of spam control. Is there a write up of how to setup up postscreen for maximum spam control. TIA John A

using two different sending domains and IP addresses on one postfix server

Hello, I am configuring postfix send only mail server with 2x sending domain lets say mail.domain1.com and mail.domain2.com. I have configured almost all the pieces main.cf master.cf and sender_dependent_default_transport_maps in main.cf. But unfortunately I cannot achieve to the result

Re: 4.7.0 too many connections from Tbird client

On Wed, January 24, 2018 9:34 am, Noel Jones wrote: > You should grep for "reject:", not error: Noel, thanks again, (log since Jan 21) # grep '110.170.19.146' /var/log/maillog | grep "lost connection" Jan 22 14:37:02 geko postfix/smtpd[4701]: lost connection after DATA (257981 bytes) from

Re: submission configuration in master.cf

Hi Noel, > On Jan 23, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > >> I was wondering about a configuration parameter listed with the default >> submission configuration in master.cf. >> >> One of the parameters that overrides the settings in main.cf >>

Re: 4.7.0 too many connections from Tbird client

On 1/23/2018 4:20 PM, Voytek wrote: > On Wed, January 24, 2018 8:47 am, Noel Jones wrote: > >> Find the error in the postfix log for the user's IP address. The >> postfix error may not be the same as what the user is presented with. > > > Noel, > > thanks > > I can only see this, am I using

Re: 4.7.0 too many connections from Tbird client

On Wed, January 24, 2018 8:47 am, Noel Jones wrote: > Find the error in the postfix log for the user's IP address. The > postfix error may not be the same as what the user is presented with. Noel, thanks I can only see this, am I using correct search criteria though ?? # grep

Re: 4.7.0 too many connections from Tbird client

On 1/23/2018 3:39 PM, Voytek wrote: > one of the users reported getting on TBird client: > > "Alert an error occurred when sending mail: the mail server sent incorrect > greeting 4.7.0 error too many connections from 110.170.19.146" > Find the error in the postfix log for the user's IP

4.7.0 too many connections from Tbird client

one of the users reported getting on TBird client: "Alert an error occurred when sending mail: the mail server sent incorrect greeting 4.7.0 error too many connections from 110.170.19.146" # grep '110.170.19.146' /var/log/maillog | wc 1349 24838 304573 I've tried # grep 'too many'

Re: submission configuration in master.cf

On 1/23/2018 2:08 PM, J Doe wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering about a configuration parameter listed with the default > submission configuration in master.cf. > > One of the parameters that overrides the settings in main.cf > “milter_macro_daemon_name” is set to “ORIGINATING” instead of the

submission configuration in master.cf

Hi, I was wondering about a configuration parameter listed with the default submission configuration in master.cf. One of the parameters that overrides the settings in main.cf “milter_macro_daemon_name” is set to “ORIGINATING” instead of the default value in main.cf. Why is this done ?

Re: gmgr behaviour in virtual servers

pete pot: > - Makes total sense that fsync falsely returns before all data are > written to real drive in a VM... i did not know Postfix waits for > fsync, thanks Wietse! This is a VM configuration error. The writes should be synchronous, so that mail will not be lost after fsync() returns. > -

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On 23 January 2018 at 16:55, Noel Jones wrote: > On 1/23/2018 1:06 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote: >> On 23 January 2018 at 04:20, Noel Jones > > wrote: >> >> Strong spam indicators for the HELO are >> (note: this

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote: > > There is imprecise language in RFC1035 (1987) implying that there should be > only one PTR per IP but it depends on the idea of a "primary host name" for > an IP, which is not universally meaningful or useful as a naming concept. We

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On 1/23/2018 1:06 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote: > On 23 January 2018 at 04:20, Noel Jones > wrote: > > Strong spam indicators for the HELO are > (note: this is for mail coming from the internet. Authenticated > submission mail or

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On 22 Jan 2018, at 22:31 (-0500), li...@lazygranch.com wrote: So if I do a reverse DNS lookup on some IP addresses, I will get multiple domains? Yes, as long as you use a DNS resolution tool and not a client of the abstracted name resolver of your OS (which may use a complex federation of

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On 23 January 2018 at 16:12, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:50:24AM -0500, Kris Deugau wrote: >> >> There is no One True Standard, and even within the more common conventions >> there are quite a few variations. > > And even if people came up with a

Re: gmgr behaviour in virtual servers

> On Jan 23, 2018, at 8:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > - Your VMM cheats, by disabling SYNCHRONOUS UPDATES of the virtual > disk. This means you lose mail when the host OS crashes. Postfix > requires that fsync returns after the data is stored. With caching > in host

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:50:24AM -0500, Kris Deugau wrote: > > There is no One True Standard, and even within the more common conventions > there are quite a few variations. And even if people came up with a standard, the operator could lie. After all, it's just DNS. There are no DNS Police

Re: gmgr behaviour in virtual servers

>> This may not be exactly a Postfix question, but related... >> I have noticed that when there are a lot of emails in the deferred queue and >> i use 'postqueue -f' to send them all, vmware virtual servers >> >> are incredible much faster than physical servers!! > > >You say both servers run

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

Dominic Raferd wrote: ​Is there a method (regex?) for reliably identifying dynamic ip addresses? Short answer: No. If you really insist on going down that rabbit hole, look up the RDNS_DYNAMIC rule from Apache SpamAssassin. It's an aggregation of 25 provider-specific probably-dynamic rDNS

Re: gmgr behaviour in virtual servers

pete pot: > > > This may not be exactly a Postfix question, but related... > I have noticed that when there are a lot of emails in the deferred queue and > i use 'postqueue -f' to send them all, vmware virtual servers > > are incredible much faster than physical servers!! You say both servers

Re: Cyrus vs Dovecot for SASL AUTH and IMAP

On Jan 23, 2018, at 03:04, Peter wrote: > I would still use Dovecot for the server side and just install those very few > libs that are necessary from Cyrus for the client SASL support. Agree. After switching to dovecot years ago I'm never going back to Cyrus. -- This

Re: Cyrus vs Dovecot for SASL AUTH and IMAP

On 20/01/18 19:32, Bill Cole wrote: > If you need *outbound* SASL support (i.e. authentication to an upstream > relay) then You can choose Cyrus or nothing. A point of clarification for outbound Cyrus SASL: For this Postfix simply has to have been built against the Cyrus SASL libraries and you

Re: Request for feedback on SMTPD restrictions

Dominic Raferd wrote on 23.01.2018 at 9:06: > > ​Is there a method (regex?) for reliably identifying dynamic ip addresses?​ > Take for instance 199-127-103-235.static.avestadns.com - it looks dynamic to > me but it says it is static. Is it best/safest to rely on

gmgr behaviour in virtual servers

This may not be exactly a Postfix question, but related... I have noticed that when there are a lot of emails in the deferred queue and i use 'postqueue -f' to send them all, vmware virtual servers are incredible much faster than physical servers!! Virtual servers can take 3 or 4 seconds to