> On 4 Mar 2019, at 4:40 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> [ Just this once, I'm going to make an exception and send HTML email. It's
> only
>new content is colour added to two snippets of the original text. ]
>
>> On Mar 4, 2019, at 12:29 AM, James Brown wrote:
>>
>> 2019-03-04
[ Just this once, I'm going to make an exception and send HTML email. It's only
new content is colour added to two snippets of the original text. ]
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 12:29 AM, James Brown wrote:
>
> 2019-03-04 15:52:00.949864+1100 localhost smtpd[25337]: connect from
>
On Mon, March 4, 2019 5:29 am, James Brown wrote:
> Postfix 3.4.0, using Dovecot for SASL authentication and MySQL.
>
> I have set:
>
> unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
>
> But when an email comes through to an unknown user, a 451 Temporary Lookup
> Failure code is given, not a 550:
>
>
Postfix 3.4.0, using Dovecot for SASL authentication and MySQL.
I have set:
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
But when an email comes through to an unknown user, a 451 Temporary Lookup
Failure code is given, not a 550:
2019-03-04 15:52:00.949864+1100 localhost smtpd[25337]: connect
I was under the impression that Postscreen kept a cache of the IP addresses
that failed Pregreet / DNSBL tests.Then it would use those cached results to
drop clients immediately based on that previously cached results / expire
time.
What is throwing me off is this :
postscreen_dnsbl_max_ttl :
On Mar 3, 2019, at 16:17, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> You wouldn't happen to have the names of any products that fall
> into that other category that you just described would you?
rsync done this to my system in the past.
--
My main job is trying to come up with new and innovative and
Wietse Venema:
> Ian! D. Allen:
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > smtp unix - - n - - smtp
> > > -o { smtp_generic_maps = inline:{{idal...@idallen.ca = you@college}}}
> > > This updates envelope addresses and header
Ian! D. Allen:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > smtp unix - - n - - smtp
> > -o { smtp_generic_maps = inline:{{idal...@idallen.ca = you@college}}}
> > This updates envelope addresses and header addresses.
>
> Well, the
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> smtp unix - - n - - smtp
> -o { smtp_generic_maps = inline:{{idal...@idallen.ca = you@college}}}
> This updates envelope addresses and header addresses.
Well, the above correctly updates
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> smtp unix - - n - - smtp
> -o { smtp_generic_maps = inline:{{idal...@idallen.ca = you@college}}}
Am I right that since my master.cf already has a "smtp unix" entry, the
above "smtp unix" line
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <44c5tp4v0yzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>
> >Postfix is in a different league than software that just runs the
> >system into the ground under load, and that requires a babysitter
> >to become unstuck.
>
> Thanks for the clarification and the
In message <20190303184645.gl...@straasha.imrryr.org>, Viktor wrote:
>I could also point out that TCP stacks can allow the same local
>ephemeral port to be used for multiple TCP connections, provided
>the 4-tuple (remote ip, remote port, local ip, local port) is unique.
>There is no requirement
In message <44c5tp4v0yzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Postfix is in a different league than software that just runs the
>system into the ground under load, and that requires a babysitter
>to become unstuck.
Thanks for the clarification and the clarity.
You wouldn't happen to have the
On 3 Mar 2019, at 14:54, Mayhem wrote:
No, the manual states "Drop the connection immediately with a 521 SMTP
reply"
and that's not happening.
The 521 drop comes *after* the pregreet and DNSBL checks.
Because the basis for the drop IS the DNSBL checks. Postscreen cannot
drop a connection
John Fawcett:
> Hi Wietse
>
> just in case you're not aware of it: the latest experimental release
> does not seem to be present at this link
>
> ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/experimental/postfix-3.5-20190301.tar.gz
>
> or the equivalent mirror links.
It was under
Hi Wietse
just in case you're not aware of it: the latest experimental release
does not seem to be present at this link
ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/experimental/postfix-3.5-20190301.tar.gz
or the equivalent mirror links.
John
Martin Brampton:
> Is there a way to set a from address for Postfix automatic messages on
> delivery failure?
On 03/03/2019 21:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
> With command-line submission:
> sendmail -f bounce-address recipient-address...
>
> With SMTP submission:
> MAIL FROM:...
>
> With
Thanks, but I'm looking for a way to set a default in postfix, not to
set a bounce address for a particular email. Is that possible?
On 03/03/2019 21:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
Martin Brampton:
Is there a way to set a from address for Postfix automatic messages on
delivery failure?
With
Could someone update the manual for clarification then?
The manual suggests the connection will close immediately - and that's it.
As is stands now, it makes no mention that it will "Allow other tests to
complete" first.
ignore : Ignore the failure of this test. Allow other tests to complete.
Martin Brampton:
> Is there a way to set a from address for Postfix automatic messages on
> delivery failure?
With command-line submission:
sendmail -f bounce-address recipient-address...
With SMTP submission:
MAIL FROM:...
With QMQP, the bounce address is the second protocol field
Is there a way to set a from address for Postfix automatic messages on
delivery failure?
Ian! D. Allen:
> This is a query about how to have Postfix rewrite a From: address only
> for messages sent to a particular destination address.
>
> I've set my Postfix transport map so that most of my home email (From:
> idal...@idallen.ca) goes out via my web host idallen.ca:
>
>
Wietse Venema:
> Mayhem:
> > Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: DNSBL rank 2 for
> > [85.54.217.239]:5089
> > Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: FAIL
> > [85.54.217.239]:5089
> > Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: DROP
> > [85.54.217.239]:5089
On 1 Mar 2019, at 9:21, Thomas Seilund wrote:
On 01/03/2019 08.39, Andrey Repin wrote:
Greetings, Thomas Seilund!
smtp inet n - n
- - smtpd -o
content_filter=spamfilter -o
receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
spamfilter unix - n n
This is a query about how to have Postfix rewrite a From: address only
for messages sent to a particular destination address.
I've set my Postfix transport map so that most of my home email (From:
idal...@idallen.ca) goes out via my web host idallen.ca:
smtp:[idallen.ca]:submission
My
No, the manual states "Drop the connection immediately with a 521 SMTP reply"
and that's not happening.
The 521 drop comes *after* the pregreet and DNSBL checks.
Mar 3 09:59:54 localhost postfix/dnsblog[84376]: addr 85.54.217.239 listed
by domain zen.spamhaus.org as 127.0.0.11
Mar 3 09:59:54
Mayhem:
> Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: DNSBL rank 2 for
> [85.54.217.239]:5089
> Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: FAIL
> [85.54.217.239]:5089
> Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: DROP
> [85.54.217.239]:5089
> Mar 3 10:00:00 localhost
The 521 SMTP reply only happens after checking the block lists. It's not
being dropped immediately like the manually says it should be.
-
Mar 3 09:59:54 localhost postfix/postscreen[84375]: CONNECT from
[85.54.217.239]:5089 to [xx.xx.xx.xx]:25
Mar 3 09:59:54 localhost
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 01:49:12AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >> But this other fellow I've been taking to offered an unexpectedobservation:
> >> If a given Postfix installation was attempting to support, say, 1 million
> >> unique domain names (correponding to 1 million unique
Original poster:
>Mar 3 08:03:56 localhost postfix/postscreen[80179]: HANGUP after 0.48 from
>[185.234.217.223]:64507 in tests after SMTP handshake
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> this looks like client hung up before postscreen could reject the
> connection.
No, the client hung up 0.48s after it was
On 03.03.19 10:21, Mayhem wrote:
It doesn't appear that postscreen_dnsbl_action is working correctly when set
to "drop".
The manual states "Drop the connection immediately with a 521 SMTP reply" -
but that's not happening. It's still checking the block lists.
Mar 3 08:03:50 localhost
Assuming that you don't have multiple conflicting "postscreen_dnsbl_action"
settings in main.cf, you can configure postscreen to log the action
(drop, enforce, etc.) with "postscreen -v".
Commands:
# postconf -F "smtp/inet/command = postscreen -v"
# postfix reload
This will slow down
It doesn't appear that postscreen_dnsbl_action is working correctly when set
to "drop".
The manual states "Drop the connection immediately with a 521 SMTP reply" -
but that's not happening. It's still checking the block lists.
Mar 3 08:03:50 localhost postfix/postscreen[80179]: CONNECT from
Voytek:
> what else should I be checking/testing/adding/removing ?
Look in the Postfix 3.3 RELEASE_NOTES file.
Wietse
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> But this other fellow I've been taking to offered an unexpected observation:
> If a given Postfix installation was attempting to support, say, 1 million
> unique domain names (correponding to 1 million unique customers) and if
> just 11,000 of those were to all
On 01 Mar 2019, at 07:21, Thomas Seilund wrote:
-- Once a day for each user I clear the bayes files and rebuild bayes files
with:
On 02/03/2019 13.38, @lbutlr wrote:
You are removing the bases entries daily and rebuilding them based on a very
few (if any) messages in your LaernAs folders?
On 02/03/2019 13.38, @lbutlr wrote:
On 01 Mar 2019, at 07:21, Thomas Seilund wrote:
-- Once a day for each user I clear the bayes files and rebuild bayes files
with:
You are removing the bases entries daily and rebuilding them based on a very
few (if any) messages in your LaernAs folders?
In message <41848ab9-339a-41a8-9a20-b1533eb77...@dukhovni.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>>
>> But this other fellow I've been taking to offered an unexpectedobservation:
>> If a given Postfix installation was attempting to support,
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>
> But this other fellow I've been taking to offered an unexpected observation:
> If a given Postfix installation was attempting to support, say, 1 million
> unique domain names (correponding to 1 million unique customers) and if
>
39 matches
Mail list logo
