Once upon a time, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk said:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 06:50:38PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I wrote a milter for our Plesk servers to check quota at RCPT TO
time instead (and return a permanent error for over-quota) to fix
the bad behavior.
Unfortunately that only
, and that the
message gets saved (so I can review when somebody complains).
Thanks; I guess I'll take a look at amavis.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
) of mimedefang/amavis since I was just looking for basic
spam blocking.
Thanks.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
this.
If it matters, this is Postfix 2.6.6 on CentOS 6.
Thanks.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
mail.charite.de 3.2.0-26-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 14 17:49:24 UTC
2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
Chris
2012/6/27 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Chris:
2012/6/26 Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com:
After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix -
using Ubuntu's Precise version, as well as the security, updates, and
backports repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken
problem: 4425:error:1408F10B:SSL
routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:wrong version number:s3_pkt.c:340:
A general question:
Why is only postfix affected and not sendmail or exim?
--
Chris
search a lot and can't find a solution other
than using transport_destination_recipient_limit = 1 and the -DO
flags, but this again will create a new message for each recipient.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris
-recipient-in-email-enveloppe
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Michael J Wise mjw...@kapu.net wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Chris Nagele wrote:
I am using Postfix to pipe messages to an external program. Does
anyone know how to pipe a single message that retains all recipients,
including
to consolidate them.
Thanks for the help.
-Chris
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Bill Cole
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
On 19 Jun 2012, at 17:42, Chris Nagele wrote:
When I capture the messages that are sent via pipe it contains all TO
and CC, but the BCC header is gone. From
I'm sure this can't be the first time this has come up, but my google-foo
just isn't strong enough to find what I'm looking for. Here's the
scenario:
Postfix is final destination for domain1.tld, and is implemented as
virtual mailboxes (no local unix accounts), with mysql lookups. So far so
Dynamic routing like if us...@domain1.tld doesn't exist, then forward
the mail to us...@domain2.tld is not possible in Postfix (at least not
that I'm aware of).
Ah, that's what I was really looking for. Thank you.
The more I think about this whole idea, the more I think it is a bad idea,
Hello Postfix-Users,
I would like to change the (Postfix) label in my mail headers to a custom label.
What do I need to change the code?
--
Chris
On 18/05/2012 21:19, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/18/2012 1:06 PM, Chris wrote:
Hi Noel,
The email from gmail.com in my example log comes in on port 25 - the
1st line in master.cf. If I leave the -o
content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock in instead of removing it,
then authenticating users who
Please, can anybody help me?
Chris
. This
is just how it is and it would be a nightmare to get them all to change.
So they have the option of 25 or 587.
Cheers,
Chris
On 18/05/2012 17:11, Chad M Stewart wrote:
On May 18, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Chris wrote:
master.cf
-
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
-o content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp
if
they use ports 25 or 587) and non-authenticating clients get caught by
the check_client_access line at the end, which puts them through dspam,
but _unfortunately_ before queue.
Cheers,
Chris
On 18/05/2012 17:34, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/18/2012 7:41 AM, Chris wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am having
If I submit a message with the following message-id to the postfix sendmail
interface using */usr/sbin/sendmail -r...@here.com -t -oi -oem*
Message-Id: *58faf4a4-8e6f-4b60-af87-173efa7d3...@here.com*
The Postfix sendmail interface receives the message with the specified
message-id:
Mar 9
Awesome! That was it. I assumed my PERL library was doing the for me.
I'm hearing the when you assume speech coming on.
Thank you!!
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
If I submit a message with the following
--
Chris
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I am using Postfix with amavisd.
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by my.postfix-server.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I am using Postfix with amavisd.
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0
2012/3/2 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:32:18PM +0100, Chris wrote:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
I am using Postfix
Hi Postfix Users,
How to filter messages from this list?
I miss something like List-Id: Postfix Mailing List
postfix-users.postfix.org
--
Chris
2012/2/11 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
On 2/10/2012 12:44 PM, Chris wrote:
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests? Can I disable these deep
protocol tests
of view this
is not RFC compliant. Greylisting delays mail traffic.
If I have five incoming mx records running postfix with postscreen...
and each time the sender receives a 4xx error ... This is
unacceptable.
Otherwise, I think postscreen has some nice features and I would like to use it.
--
Chris
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I noticed:
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html#after_220
When a good client passes the deep protocol tests, postscreen(8) adds
the client to the temporary whitelist
2012/2/10 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 07:11:50PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I noticed:
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html#after_220
When a good client passes the deep protocol tests, postscreen(8)
adds the client to the temporary whitelist but it cannot hand
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
If you let the MX share one memcache instance, the second MX to
receive a connection will immediately accept it. Works like a charm
here.
Okay, I see. That would be a solution.
How did you realize
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Read a bit more. It IS disabled unless you specifically enable it.
Postscreen? Or what do you mean?
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests?
The stuff with the deep in it, yes
Can I disable these deep protocol tests in postscreen
2012/2/10 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Chris:
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Read a bit more. It IS disabled unless you specifically enable it.
Postscreen? Or what do you mean?
The deep inspection and postscreen
as is?
Thanks!
Chris
- --
Chris Horry
zer...@wibble.co.uk
http://www.wibble.co.uk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk7BGzcACgkQnAAeGCtMZU4EnQCgzs4nU55h9FjHOSNi+3ELlSMd
On Fri, November 4, 2011 12:07 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
If this is an MX host, you need to allow mail to your own domains
before you reject to, otherwise only your own users will be
able to send you email.
Since the sender address and the SASL login account are not
necessarily the same.
and 'no'
for 'untrusted' clients, that the result will be to fall through to
permit_sasl_auth for the 'trusted' clients and fail entirely for the
'untrusted' clients who are OUTSIDE, but still permit normal relay for
clients who are INSIDE?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Chris
On Mon, October 24, 2011 12:28 am, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/23/2011 10:06 PM, Chris Richards wrote:
My question is this: how do I setup to alias all of my users in domain A
so that they also appear in domain B, and do so WITHOUT turning my
server
into a backscatter source
when you are doing aliasing?
Do I need to do some kind of rewrite with canonical_maps or something?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
was hijacked?
Chris
,
Alokat
You can get a multi-domain SSL certificate. It is one certificate that
lists all the domains for which it is valid.
--
Chris
that
does nothing cannot be hacked or exploited in any way because there is nothing
to exploit. By moving most of the functions out of the master process, even if
the other processes have flaws, they aren't privileged.
Someone else can feel free to correct me.
Chris
on this list if I continue to have
problems.
Chris
:13 correct/allowed?
It's also a bit odd in that the mail actually arrived in my inbox (also
on the same LAN) at around 11:40 so it seems to have taken an awfully
long time for this E-Mail to get delivered.
Should I be worried?
--
Chris Green
because mail for zbmc.eu is accepted?
There are likely *some* E-Mails sent to some...@dps.zbmc.eu from within
the LAN.
--
Chris Green
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:42:11AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/23/2010 6:00 AM, Chris G wrote:
Currently my mydestination line looks like:-
zbmc.eu, dps.zbmc.eu, localhost
This is on the mail server which receives E-Mail from the 'outside
world' from whose point of view my system
invalid/unknown host names in the headers as these host names only
exist on my LAN.
So, is there a way to get what I want? It's surely quite a common
situation.
--
Chris Green
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris G:
I have several machines behind a NAT router which run postfix. Some of
these machines are desktop machines with real users who create and send
mail while others are (usually headless) servers where the only mail
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 01:15:24PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:03:26PM +, Chris G wrote:
E.g. I want messages from postmaster/root/cron on my dps server to be
distinguishable from similar messages from the server called mws.
http://www.postfix.org
could also peruse SOHO_README.html.
That's me/us (SOHO I mean), we have only 10 or so systems on our LAN.
Although we do have a 'real' domain name so some of it doesn't apply. I
did use the information there about setting up SASL a while ago.
--
Chris Green
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0500, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
On 11/16/2010 2:03 PM, Chris G wrote:
Er, it's Postfix isn't it? :-) Or have I misunderstood completely
(quite likely!).
When I 'telnet mws.zbmc.eu 25' from the client it does connect to
mws.zbmc.eu (192.168.1.4
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
... and that has resolved the DNS/IP problem at least though I'm still
getting relaying denied. So now the relayhost (192.168.1.4) is
rejecting the E-Mail from the client (192.168.1.2) even though I have:-
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:32:24PM +, Chris G wrote:
It is not legal for a DNS CNAME RRset to coexist with other data for
the same domain name. Nor should you have multiple CNAME records for
the same domain
: by dps.zbmc.eu (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id E83EE100283; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:02:53 + (GMT)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:02:53 +
From: Chris Green ch...@dps.zbmc.eu
To: ch...@halon.org.uk
Subject: Test message
Message-ID: 20101116160253.ga1...@dps.zbmc.eu
MIME-Version
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:52:36AM -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Chris G wrote:
I have a small SoHo network of machines and I have postfix installed on
most of them for sending mail. The machines sit behind a NAT router
which connects them to the internet, the domain name (as seen from
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris G:
Yes, I realise that It connects from 84.45.228.40 but I can find no
reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
Because the operating system kernel
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:13:48PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:06:27PM +, Chris G wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris G:
Yes, I realise that It connects from 84.45.228.40 but I can find no
reason at all *why
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:27:56PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Chris G wrote:
Yes, I realise that It connects from 84.45.228.40 but I can find no
reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
Because
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:58:06PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:50:02PM +, Chris G wrote:
So where is there a system sending this mail which appears to be
84.45.228.40?
From what I can see in the logs the mail isn't going out to the outside
world
- ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com. (user: domain2)
How do I configure this?
Regards,
Chris
On 8/4/2010 12:13 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Chris St Denisch...@smartt.com:
I've setup a dns whitelist from dnswl.org as per the instructions
here: http://www.dnswl.org/tech#postfix
However I've discovered it doesn't work, because I rejected an email
coming from a gmail server that got
I've setup a dns whitelist from dnswl.org as per the instructions
here: http://www.dnswl.org/tech#postfix
However I've discovered it doesn't work, because I rejected an email
coming from a gmail server that got itself blacklisted by sorbs, but it
is on the whitelist.
Why is this not
I am running postfix as a SMTP front-end to my Exchange 2007 system.
When Exchange goes down, email is bounced back to the sender as undeliverable.
How can I setup postfix to 'spool' email until the backend SMTP server is
online?
I have enclosed my main.cf, master.cf, and transport configs (at
On 11/11/09 7:55 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 06:14:08
dhottin...@harrisonburg.k12.va.us wrote:
Quoting Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
You should be concentrating your focus on the Senders by
message count section.
Wouldnt the logwatch from
On 11/11/09 7:55 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Senders by message count is ENVELOPE SENDER, in the case of spam,
completely useless. If the OP has, as I might guess, a compromised
httpd + PHP script, for example, the envelope sender will probably
change for EACH spam it sends.
/bin/ps
Hello list! We are being blacklisted every few days from verizon. This is
less important right now as I need to find out if/who is sending spam from
the email server or if the server is an open relay. I am less inclined to
think postfix (which is what we use) is an open relay. More inclined to
and I am running pflogsumm.pl inside of that dir. Does it
need to be moved to the mail log dir? It doesn¹t seem so as the readme says
to copy to path/to/bin folder.
On 11/10/09 6:33 PM, Justin C. Le Grice mailingli...@legrice.co.nz
wrote:
Chris Arnold wrote:
Blacklisted on Verizon Hello list! We
it is very long and 2 there
are somethings that don't need to be shared on a mailinglist :)
What are some things I should be looking for in the pflogsumm.pl report?
On 11/10/09 8:00 PM, d.h...@yournetplus.com d.h...@yournetplus.com
wrote:
Quoting Chris Arnold carn...@electrichendrix.com:
OK, I
On 11/10/09 8:36 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Chris Arnold put forth on 11/10/2009 7:21 PM:
Don't want to post the whole pflogsumm file as 1 it is very long and 2 there
are somethings that don't need to be shared on a mailinglist :)
What are some things I should
On 11/10/09 8:58 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 19:21:04 Chris Arnold wrote:
OK, nothing stands out from pflogsumm.pl:
Nothing?
Per-Day Traffic Summary
date received delivered deferredbounced rejected
or worse. I
have something that appears to work with the TRE regex library in
CRM-114. The top Google result for perl mime parser describes
MIME::Parser as an experimental class for parsing MIME streams.
Overall, not a promising lot.
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
,reject_unknown_sender_domain,
permit
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
Thanks
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: 21 October 2009 12:04
emails as they come in.
Kind Regards
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: 21 October 2009 12:23 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix Sender Verify
This message
Hi Charles
It checks to verify the sender once, then caches the result in a database, so
mail servers aren't hassled more than once per email address verification.
Regards
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
problems or that
there are other optimizations that would have a better return for your
time - particularly if the same message payload is being delivered to
multiple recipients.
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
with the large operations that knowingly do aggravating things without
providing tech support for those who try to be clever without the
payroll to handle the problems they cause themselves. Do you honestly
think that you're the first one to think of this 'solution' to this
class of spam?
Chris
in advance.
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris Smith
if applicable. Text is expected to be in native UNIX
stream-LF format.
Exactly what my thoughts were on the subject, how about folding of
headers they should be folded with LF-WSP as opposed to CRLF-WSP?
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris Smith
Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris Smith:
Wietse Venema wrote:
The format should be consistent with RFC 5322 (RFC 2822, RFC 822)
and with MIME if applicable. Text is expected to be in native UNIX
stream-LF format.
Exactly what my thoughts were on the subject, how about folding of
headers
. Someone who behaves perfectly well on my
server might be an exceedingly poor judge of character. Without
limiting the depth of the certificate, I would have no way to accept a
TLS connection as the first without being open to the second.
I love waking up to a sub peona, don't you? :-)
Chris Babcock
rewriting and you lose a whole
lot more mail than that.
How about the root issue? You either got an always BCC configured
that you don't want or a specific class of Spam that can probably be
handled in a better way. Which is it?
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
or
mail.host2.example.com.
Is there a particular reason behind this implementation, and is there any way
to work around it? I understand that wildcard certs can be considered a
security risk, but is the risk really much greater if it includes a longer
hostname?
Thanks for your time!
Chris Simmons
= $myhostname ESMTP Chris Babcock 602-859-1689
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain permit_mynetworks reject_unauth_destination
reject_multi_recipient_bounce reject_non_fqdn_hostname reject_invalid_hostname
smtpd_helo_required = yes
documentation.
I sent a message to a verifier, which provided this helpful clue:
Please note that the DKIM filter signing this reply message
conforms to the latest IETF draft version, and thus may not be
successfully verified by older implementations.
Thank you all,
Chris
. Its not easily
usable directly from syslog in its current form.
Anyone do anything like this yet? Have any suggestions or alternative
ways of doing this?
-Chris
senders. It's still expensive and sub-optimal, but it's not entirely
doomed. More importantly, it's a path toward the re-evaluation of the
business model.
Chris Babcock
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the following in my sasl directory:
/etc/postfix/sasl/sasl_passwd
/etc/postfix/sasl/sasl_passwd.db
I've attached a debug level #2 logfile and saslfinger output. I
sincerely appreciate any help. -Chris
Jul 4 12:54:34 psico postfix/pickup[31099]: 77F901D0F70: uid=500
from=n...@domain.com
Jul 4 12:54:34
for returned mail and I
take care to make sure that it goes someplace where it can be used to
stop the sorceror's apprentice from making more brooms. I hate it when
providers don't notify me when they won't deliver mail because it
doesn't give me a chance to fix the problem.
Chris Babcock
http
I have a Centos 5.3 box running Postfix 2.3.3.
It is setup to run incoming emails thru Policyd-Weight, Amavisd, then forward
to my exchange server.
If the Exchange server goes offline, the linux box will bounce all incoming
emails as undeliverable. How can I setup Postfix so that is queues
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:VERP_Address
So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
postmap -q RCPT TO:chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it came back with a result
-dr postfix/qmgr[9062]: 7A03D28E132: removed
Mar 20 09:06:35 mail-dr postfix/smtp[9073]: 75D8529027D:
to=chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com,
relay=mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25, delay=0.19,
delays=0.02/0/0.11/0.06, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Well, pointing the gun the wrong way is differently something that I
don't want to be doing. But in the case,
I'm confused. I'm having mail-dr send out to another server,
mail.chrisdos.com, on the internet. Mail-DR is
a separate mail server all together
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole point of this exercise for me is to just intercept a bounce
back and process it internally
--
Chris Dos
Senior Engineer
Cell: 303-520-1821
Chris Dos wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole point
of bouncing it back to the person that originally sent the mail. The
best way seems to be to use VERP. Is
there something I'm missing or a different way to go about doing
this. Maybe pass all initial bounces through
procmail or something to that affect?
Chris
Internally generated bounces
method that someone suggests, I'm all
ears.
Chris
Chris
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/17/2009, Chris Dos (ch...@chrisdos.com) wrote:
Sorry, I did have:
recipient_delimiter = +
in another part of my main.cf file.
One reason why the DEBUG_README asks (among other things) that you
provide output of postconf -n instead of snips from main.cf.
Here
@chrisdos.com
ORCPT=rfc822;chris+2bno-one-home+3dchrisdos@chrisdos.com
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596]:
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25: DATA
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596]:
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25: 250 2.1.0 Ok
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596
accept or
reject.
Chris
the check_recipient_access map.
Chris
to try to bounce to a (usually) non-legitimate
sender.
It'd be nice if Exchange accepted and then silently dropped, but that
doesn't seem to be coming. So, on my part, what can I do with Postfix
to drop messages that Exchange (defined through the transport file)
rejects?
Thanks,
Chris
this:
/^.+\+.+\=...@.+\..+$/ DISCARD
/^.+\+.+\=...@.+\..+$/ REDIRECTverpbounce
I've tested the header check by using this:
postmap -q chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it comes back with a result of DISCARD.
I can't even get the DISCARD to work yet, much less
201 - 300 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
