Hello,
I noticed something interesting in my logs today. I am running Postfix 3.3.1:
Aug 24 21:09:25 server postfix/submission/smtpd[10256]: connect from
unknown[unknown]:unknown
Aug 24 21:09:25 server postfix/submission/smtpd[10256]: lost connection
after CONNECT from
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:10:00PM -0500, Ryan Beethe wrote:
> > Also it is my understanding that SPF and DKIM suffer the same
> > issues... if the mailing list is configured incorrectly then when I
> > receive an email from a
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:54:32PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Even more relevant for the $Subject: several Postfix lookup tables
> > already block non-UTF8 queries when smtputf8 mode is turned
> > off (dict_ldap.c, dict_sqlite.c):
> >
> > /*
> > * Don't frustrate
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 05:14:46PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:54:32PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > I think that we should by default extend this to all lookup tables
> > and do away with that LATIN1 hack. That would also address the
> > problem that underlies
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:54:32PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I think that we should by default extend this to all lookup tables
> and do away with that LATIN1 hack. That would also address the
> problem that underlies the original request. No need for signaling
> the request encoding!
If the
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:55:19PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> SMTP protocol. The something else unspecified will be some valid (
> intended or otherwise) LATIN1 string. Its use in database queries
> with a LATIN1 client encoding will not throw perplexing errors.
Ok, I get it. I will note
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Yes, but that'd have to be done by the dictionary lookup layer,
> possibly in proxymap, based on a suitable signal from the lookup
> client, but the low-level API (dict_get()) does not presently
> support any per-lookup flags. So we'd need dict_get_ex() that
> takes a new utf8
Ryan Beethe skrev den 2018-08-24 21:22:
Also it is my understanding that SPF and DKIM suffer the same issues...
if the mailing list is configured incorrectly then when I receive an
email from a list it won't pass SPF and/or DKIM.
incorrect, spf changes from the sending server, dkim is valid
> Looking at your 'conditions', what you're trying to do looks like its
> already handled by an existing milter
>
> https://www.benzedrine.ch/milter-regex.html
>
> How are your requirements different than what that provides?
Indeed, it looks like I could implement the requirements I am using with
Email address (and user name to authenticate email) not matching the log in
user name, totally not spoofing in my book, and in fact can be ‘required’ by
some security guidelines. (You publicize your email address, it really
shouldn’t be part of your security credentials, that just vastly cuts
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:51:08PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> This feels like you are reinventing DMARC or maybe DKIM and needing to
> invent ARC to solve the problem with mailing lists. Have you looked
> at those systems?
>
> A
I had not looked at ARC, but if I am not mistaken... isn't ARC
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 07:02:27PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> Absent any indication of character set from the client, there was
>> no way to know what encoding any particular non-ASCII octet
>> string may be using, so the code
Ryan,
Looking at your 'conditions', what you're trying to do looks like its already
handled by an existing milter
https://www.benzedrine.ch/milter-regex.html
How are your requirements different than what that provides?
Rob
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Ryan Beethe wrote:
> I am
I am developing a milter application to enforce certain properties of
both header From and envelop From fields of emails, both outgoing and
incoming to my server.
While reading through recent traffic on this list I realized that my
current rules were too strict and would break basically all
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 07:02:27PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Absent any indication of character set from the client, there was
> no way to know what encoding any particular non-ASCII octet
> string may be using, so the code was optimized to avoid spurious
> database string conversion
Hello.
I have some difficulties to understand how lookup tables are used in
postfix.
>From my own usage, I know two usages
A) Single column.
You query with a parameter. If the parameter is found in the table you get a
non null value ( index value for example ). Depending of your usage you
decide
HEllo.
Postfix on a local network without a real internet domain name.
The mail server is on a specific computer.
Outbound mail are delivery by using a relay [smtp.someISP.com] using tls on
port 465
Local mail stay on the server
Less than 40 users
In a company, a linux user (userA) need to send
Correction for the parameter name: debug-peer-list should be debug_peer_list.
Wietse Venema:
> deoren:
> > On 8/24/2018 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > deoren:
> > >>> 'mail=0/1' means that Postfix rejected the MAIL FROM command (the
> > >>> client sent 1 MAIL FROM command, and Postfix
deoren:
> On 8/24/2018 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > deoren:
> >>> 'mail=0/1' means that Postfix rejected the MAIL FROM command (the
> >>> client sent 1 MAIL FROM command, and Postfix accepted 0 MAIL FROM
> >>> commands).
> >>
> >> Thank you for the response and for going into detail.
> >>
>
On 8/24/2018 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
deoren:
'mail=0/1' means that Postfix rejected the MAIL FROM command (the
client sent 1 MAIL FROM command, and Postfix accepted 0 MAIL FROM
commands).
Thank you for the response and for going into detail.
I suspect I completely overlooked it, but do
deoren:
> > 'mail=0/1' means that Postfix rejected the MAIL FROM command (the
> > client sent 1 MAIL FROM command, and Postfix accepted 0 MAIL FROM
> > commands).
>
> Thank you for the response and for going into detail.
>
> I suspect I completely overlooked it, but do you recall offhand where
21 matches
Mail list logo
