On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:20:12AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> I have header_checks configured in master.cf:
>
> header-check unix n -n-0
>cleanup
>-o header_checks=regexp:/var/local/postfix/maps/header_checks
>
> when I edit the
Hello,
I have header_checks configured in master.cf:
header-check unix n -n-0
cleanup
-o header_checks=regexp:/var/local/postfix/maps/header_checks
when I edit the header_checks file containing the regex rules, how do I
make postfix re-read the
On 2022-04-08 01:38, Alex wrote:
Return-Path: <>
X-Envelope-From: <>
Received: from mail.nrtc.syn-alias.com (mail.nrtc.syn-alias.com
[129.213.214.220])
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([local])
by smtp03.nrtc.email-ash1.sync.lan (envelope-from <>)
(ecelerity 4.3.1.69410 r(Core:4.3.1.0)) with
> On 8 Apr 2022, at 1:48 am, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-07 16:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 07.04.22 09:16, Horst Simon wrote:
>
>>> In the main.cf I removed
>>> content_filter = amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
>> this is not milter interface...
>
> an its removed :)
>
> more
Hi,
I'm having trouble figuring out why this header check doesn't reject a
mailer-daemon bounce email with ".lan" in the From address:
/^From:.*\.lan>$/ REJECT Invalid domain
It works if I use postmap directly, but not when the bounce message is
received. Does it have something to do with it
On 07/04/2022 17:55, Pedro David Marco wrote:
Probably i am misunderstanding Postfix documentation but... What is exactly the
Postfix criteria about using smtp_fallback_relay
I also had an issue with this some time ago, which I didn't understand.
At the time I had set the fallback
> On 8 Apr 2022, at 12:50 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 07.04.22 09:16, Horst Simon wrote:
>> I used to have working correctly postfix + amavisd-new + dovecot working
>> correctly with re-writing the sender address when forwarding email to my ISP
>> using sender_canonical, I am
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20220407211920.aedpm%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|Wietse Venema wrote in
| <4kz8dy5nbpzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
||To my astonishment, Postfix does not send its own version in a
||policy server request. That should probably be fixed.
|
|diff --git
Wietse Venema wrote in
<4kz8dy5nbpzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso:
|> The _only_ thing that must be taken into account, and i would wish
|> postfix would offer a solution for this, is that the *_error_limit
|> configuration parameters kick in. I have drastically low numbers
|>
Understood!
Thanks a lot Wietse and Viktor!
Tete.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 08:03:36 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Sorry, but i am confused... documentation is accurate, but probably
> not my understading of it...
Instead of arguing about what happens, look in
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks Viktor,
> i do not pretend to bother anybody to the extent of reviewing logs... i
> justneed to understand smpt_fallback_relay a little bit more... thanks again
> for your kindness..
> So... a soft fail in delivery is considered a "unreachable" destination, and
>
Steffen Nurpmeso:
> The _only_ thing that must be taken into account, and i would wish
> postfix would offer a solution for this, is that the *_error_limit
> configuration parameters kick in. I have drastically low numbers
> to reduce log noise for all these nonsense connections, but with
>
Thanks Viktor,
i do not pretend to bother anybody to the extent of reviewing logs... i
justneed to understand smpt_fallback_relay a little bit more... thanks again
for your kindness..
So... a soft fail in delivery is considered a "unreachable" destination, and
hence, smtp_fallback_relaytakes
Pedro David Marco:
> Sorry, but i am confused... documentation is accurate, but probably
> not my understading of it...
Instead of arguing about what happens, look in your logs for the
messages that end up in the deferred queue.
In the implementation, Postfix appends the fallback relay(s) to the
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20220407172531.ty1l8%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
...
|The next release (whenever it happens) will have the additional
|manual sentence
|
| Graylisting defers message acceptance a configurable number of
| times via a standardized SMTP response (see RFC 5321,
|
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:55:26PM +, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> I have destinations not accepting email with a 451 return code. Some
> of them are being sent by postfix to the smtp_fallback_relay and some
> of them are just sent to the deferred queue... Probably i am
> misunderstanding
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 07:23:14 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:>>Pedro David Marco:>>> Hi,>> Postfix
documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says: smtp_fallback_relay (default:
$fallback_relay):>> Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP destinations that
can't>> be found or that
Hello.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote in
:
|On 31.03.22 22:12, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|>I hope it is ok to forward this.
|>I have developed and released a postfix protocol graylisting
|>server that possibly could interest some people on this list.
|>I have the hope it proves worth its MTA
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> Postfix documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:
>
> smtp_fallback_relay (default: $fallback_relay):
> Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP destinations that can't
> be found or that are unreachable. With Postfix 2.2 and earlier
> this parameter is called
Hi,
Postfix documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:
smtp_fallback_relay (default: $fallback_relay):
Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP destinations that can't be found or
that are unreachable. With Postfix 2.2 and earlier this parameter is called
fallback_relay.
I have
On 31.03.22 22:12, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
I hope it is ok to forward this.
I have developed and released a postfix protocol graylisting
server that possibly could interest some people on this list.
I have the hope it proves worth its MTA :-)
The online manual ([2] below) should be enough (so
On 2022-04-07 16:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 07.04.22 09:16, Horst Simon wrote:
In the main.cf I removed
content_filter = amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
this is not milter interface...
an its removed :)
more info is needed to help imho
On 07.04.22 09:16, Horst Simon wrote:
I used to have working correctly postfix + amavisd-new + dovecot working
correctly with re-writing the sender address when forwarding email to my
ISP using sender_canonical, I am using postfix 3.7.0.
After changing from amavisd-new to rspamd it will not
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 08:20:54AM -0500, Rob McGee wrote:
> > IIUC, you are telling me to change local to virtual, in order to use
> > virtual_mailbox_maps, so vmailbox_result_format => Maildir.
>
> "vmailbox_result_format" is not a setting, where did you see this
> documented?
Actually, it is
>The best course of action is to bounce the messages with a
>relocated_maps entry and force the sender to resend?
"the best" is subjective. using relocated_maps
http://www.postfix.org/relocated.5.html
you make sure people will not receive mail to the old address, and any mail
must be re-sent to
On 2022-04-06 12:09, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Byung-Hee HWANG said:
There is good guidance for forwarding? If it is on Gmail, is best
option.
In my experience, forwarding to Gmail is an exercise in futility. I
My view is that if you want to use gmail, hire them to host mail for
On 2022-04-07 01:25, Tan Mientras wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:34 PM Wietse Venema
wrote:
You have configured *the other Postfix* system to deliver mail with
virtual_transport = virtual (which is the default)
That uses virtual_mailbox_maps to locate mailboxes/maildirs.
But here, you
> >The best course of action is to bounce the messages with a
> >relocated_maps entry and force the sender to resend?
>
> "the best" is subjective. using relocated_maps
> http://www.postfix.org/relocated.5.html
> you make sure people will not receive mail to the old address, and any mail
> must be
[note: quoted content modified slightly; it was rejected for some
reason previously]
Not a lot. In as far as this pertains to postfix, just ch-ange the primary
add-ress and add aliases for the old ones. The reply-to address should be set
to the new address.
See virtual_alias_maps and
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:34 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> You have configured *the other Postfix* system to deliver mail with
>
>virtual_transport = virtual (which is the default)
>
> That uses virtual_mailbox_maps to locate mailboxes/maildirs.
>
> But here, you have:
>
> virtual_transport =
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:20 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> note that different behaviour can be caused by:
> - destination domain in virtual_mailbox_domains
>
both equal
- home_mailbox
>
not sent in config
- mailbox_command
>
same command
please, notice we're using the SAME configuration
31 matches
Mail list logo
