I've been exploring, both on my mail-server-to-be, and on the Dovecot
mailing list, just why it is that the Dovecot deliver program is leaving the
domain string empty when formulating the mail location path. The answer I'm
getting now on that list is that it is a Postfix problem and that I should
I'm looking for an SMTP testing tool I can use to do tests of configuration
changes to Postfix. To do the proper tests I need to carry out the actual
SMTP protocol from this program (as opposed to just putting mail in the
queue), with TLS, STARTTLS, and login/authentication support, do it from a
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:59, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
This sounds like a job for Expect and openssl s_client.
Expect is at http://expect.nist.gov/
Ah, yeah ... that ... or pexpect for Python (just used pexpect last month to
extract stats from our Cisco routers).
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:10, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
While postfix does support wildcard domain domain rewriting, it is highly
discouraged because it disables recipient validation -- that tends to fill
your queue with undeliverable mail and will get you blacklisted as a
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:13, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Don't do that.
Postfix will accept mail for addresses that don't exist and later
bounce that mail to innocent people.
Of course I don't want to do that. Sounds like what I need is something
that will map the address
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:14, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
If smtp_generic_maps suit your needs, they will not affect recipient
validation, and may be easier to implement.
Isn't that a client mapping that would apply to sender addresses on
outgoing?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:00, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 5/19/2010 2:49 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:14, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org
mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
If smtp_generic_maps suit your needs, they will not affect recipient
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 17:46, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
Sounds as if you need to generate static files with a script. Don't worry
about the number of entries; hash: tables scale well to hundreds of thousand
entries, or use cdb: files for fast performance up to millions of
I was originally setting up for one hostname to which outgoing email would
be sent. Now it looks like we have some internal users that cannot reach
the firewall (because they are in a no-internet-access zone). It turns out,
for them to get to the mail server, they have to address it as a
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with always on SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will do),
and the RFCs are coming up empty. I thought it was 587. But RFC4409
doesn't say if
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes domin...@slackadelic.com wrote:
On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with always on SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:40, John Peach post...@johnpeach.com wrote:
Why not use smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt on port 587?
The remote site involved is tunneling these connections through something
like SSL, as far as I can tell. It works fine on port 993 for IMAP.
Why is SMTP over
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 18:03, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
if you mean wrapper mode ssl (aka smtps), then
$ grep smtps /etc/services
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
this is non standard. but it's used by outlook and by other people.
in the old days,
So it looks like the IP address parser used here doesn't accept all
valid forms of IPv6?
fatal: /etc/postfix/master.cf: line 32: valid hostname or network
address required in [fc00::0.0.0.25]:25
It worked when I used [fc00::0019]:25.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
I get mine from IANA and 465 is assigned differently.
what OS do you run? if smtps != 465 on your system, then the default
master.cf doesn't
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:48, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
0.0.0.25 is not a valid IPv4 address.
It is a valid way to express the last 32 bits of any IPv6 address. It
only needs to be a valid IPv4 address if the previous 96 bits are
:: (or one other case I don't reacall that
I'd like to do something like this. I have a domain, let's call
example.com. This domain has a set of users. I want to have email
accepted for any user in any hostname that is a part of this domain.
And, regardless of which hostname in this domain was involved, if the
user doesn't exist, the
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre tables.
1) You can use them for all the tables that define Postfix address
classes: mydestination + aliases, virtual_alias_domains +
virtual_alias_maps,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:37, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre tables.
?1) You can use them for all the tables that define Postfix address
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 13:41, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:09:09AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
You need one table entry per user somewhere, otherwise you can't
reject mail for users that don't exist.
Absolutely, of course. But having one entry for every pairing of user
AND hostname isn't possible (because an
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 17:10, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
You need one table entry per user somewhere, otherwise you can't
reject mail for users that don't exist.
Absolutely, of course
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:37, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre
May 26 15:59:27 eth0 postfix/pipe[17347]: 0C35B68534:
to=f...@example.com, orig_to=root, relay=dovecot, delay=21567,
delays=21567/0.02/0/0.06, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
I do have f...@example.com configured in virtual_alias_maps to go to
b...@example.com ... and that is working
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:52, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2010-05-26 4:12 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
Is there a way to get it to be remapped now that it is in the
delivery queue? Or should I just create a mailbox for f...@example.com
and mv the file over to b...@example.com
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 17:36, Greg A. Woods wo...@planix.com wrote:
This might seem odd to some for me to say, but I really don't understand
why you're trying so vainly to be such a stickler for the so-called
standards in this case.
IANA's port numbers are more a Best Common Practice than a
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:46, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
Try it an see. If it fails to connect or times out, and local policy
and/or message parameters allow this, fall back to SMTP. Specific
detail
It looks like postmap can read stdin when getting a list of keys for
delete or query. There appeared to be no documented way to read from
stdin to create a new map. So I tried the following:
marconi/root/x0 /root 37# ls
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 14:58, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
It looks like postmap can read stdin when getting a list of keys for
delete or query.
As documented in the postmap manpage:
-d key
...
If a key value of - is specified
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:21, Dan Burkland dburk...@nmdp.org wrote:
---main.cf
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination
---master.cf---
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:52, Dan Burkland dburk...@nmdp.org wrote:
My apologies, I typed the parameter in the email incorrectly. It is entered
correctly in main.cf
(smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject)
OK, then that looks fine. Since you are having trouble on port
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 17:16, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
You need -o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
to get relay permissions.
Is that for the submission entry or the smtp entry (that he didn't
provide)? It looks to me like he used mostly the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 18:31, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Dan Burkland wrote:
Relevant configuration entries:
---main.cf
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination
^
---master.cf---
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 09:47, Larry Stone lston...@stonejongleux.com wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Phil Howard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 18:31, Sahil Tandon sa...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Dan Burkland wrote:
Relevant configuration entries:
---main.cf
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 13:06, Larry Stone lston...@stonejongleux.com wrote:
And did you even read what I wrote? I am well aware you made a typo earlier.
I understand what you meant and said nothing about the mistake.
I think this is a case of users being mixed up. I did not make the
typo ...
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 02:43, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
Even though I have considered it myself as well once, I am curious as to why
someone would put a firewall on localhost?
Other applications could become compromised by spammy virii that
exploited their vulnerabilities and
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco cvela...@cnic.es wrote:
I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
I am fine with the
I saw fail2ban discussed in another thread. I was wondering if anyone
here have used it to block based on spamtraps. I want to set up a
number of dummy users and splatter their email addresses where
spammers would get at them (e.g. white on white text on web pages,
etc). Then ban the IPs that
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 16:46, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
A word of caution: don't assume that everyone browses the web using a
graphical web browser. People still browse from the command line, and more
importantly, screen readers for the disabled. If you're going to hide an
I think maybe I'm missing something in the documentation, as I was
sure Postfix could do this. What I want to do is take a list of
things, such as the list of domains for virtual_mailbox_domains, right
out of a file. This isn't a map. But do I still need to do a map,
anyway?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:01, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
The documentation shows what syntax is supported for each parameter. Some
-- but not all -- parameters support a plain file list.
You can start here:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_domains
Been
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:20, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
From the mydestination docs:
a type:table lookup table is matched when a name matches a lookup key (the
lookup result is ignored).
All map files require a key result format. In the case of a map file
used as a list,
How would I do this for smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
That question makes no sense. Rephrase.
I was looking for a general solution. I picked an example. But I
apparently picked a bad example because the solution seems to be
example specific. I guess I better not pick examples, anymore.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:44, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
There is no include syntax for main.cf itself.
You can use a Makefile to build a main.cf from proto files, or use postconf
-e ... for program-controlled editing of main.cf.
You'd still have to make it reload for
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
Most Postfix services (i.e. delivery
agents and inet services) restart automatically after processing
a ~100 requests, and reloads are not generally needed for parameters
that touch these services.
Hmmm.
The default for smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient is yes. How does that
affect using reject_unlisted_recipient in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions? Does it mean it is effectively included
whether you include it or not? I presume I still need to list other
things like smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 13:55, Jerry postfix-u...@seibercom.net wrote:
I use Dovecot for virtual transport also. I don't remember exactly why;
however, I had to place this in the main.cf file:
dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1
By the way, your smtpd_banner may make you feel
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:12, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
It's about controlling when the check takes place.
Some people like to reject unlisted recipients before other (maybe more
expensive) checks. Some people like to reject connections for RBL or
blacklist before checking
Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual
delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for
smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport =
something else like dovecot? Can it just have an OK value to mean
yeah, this is a real recipient here,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 17:06, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:39:58PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual
delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used
I don't see any easy fix to this.
A user has email forwarded from their address at domainA to their
address at domainB and also to their address at domainC, each running
on different mail servers (but maybe the same MTA software). The
catch is that domainA uses one recipient delimiter character
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:08, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
In situations where mail is forwarded outside the environment that
supports the local recipient delimiter (e.g. Postfix-Exchange):
I set:
propagate_unmatched_extesion = canonical
overriding the
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 15:30, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Another drawback to having versioned documentation online is that El
Goog is as likely to find the wrong version of a document. If a
seeker ends up at http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html , all's
well, but not necessarily so
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 22:18, Peter Evans pe...@ixp.jp wrote:
If you are bored, you can turn on a catchall, pipe that to a bit
bucket and see how many you get.
In fact, here are some results for you. (no spam filters on the work
box due to
manglement fiat IT
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:38, Dipak Biswal
dipak.bis...@meritnation.com wrote:
Hi List,
Who?
I am trying to setup postfix for mass mailing. I need help in following
areas:
1. how can we send mails using different IP's .
I suspect you don't need to. But, depending on volume, you may need
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:14, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 07:03:14PM +0300, Gaby L / AutoGlobus2000 SRL wrote:
I want to rewrite From filed from header,but only when To: Field
is only numeric (fax type)
It is:
If To: nume...@domain.tld
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:27, Isaac Witmer isaa...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm doing a custom install, and one of the packages in the install is postfix.
Each time, it prompts me to select no configuration Local use etc.
just after the package has been downloaded and right before it has
been
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 16:10, Josh Cason joc...@mychoice.cc wrote:
I have now went through my config so I will post it if needed. What I'm
facing now is spam that looks normal. Looks like a reject but is not in some
cases. The problem is that since these e-mails are delivered to the user
I am finally putting together a test mail server (something I wish I
had when putting together the first mail server, but lack of hardware
due to lack of funding flow limited that). But now I have another
machine.
But I am still seeing all the issues I had before with Ubuntu. At
first I tried
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure
postfix properly.
Name it.
Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort.
Which do you use?
Regardless, no specific distribution will
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 14:30, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
On 2010-07-07 2:02 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure
postfix properly.
Name
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman post...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote:
Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it.
Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with
Postfix. I personally think
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:11, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote:
I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and
have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with.
Are you using the packaged version of Postfix, or the source you
compile yourself?
--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:14, Gary Chambers gwch...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with
Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I
suspect at least some surely must be less so.
Why not simply avoid whatever hassles
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 08:30, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
Okay, I may have been baiting a bit there.
The obvious inference is that you need to know your distro in order to be
able to do anything useful with it.
If that causes issues, that distribution's support is your first port
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:40, markus reichelt m...@mareichelt.com wrote:
ALso, I can only stress what has been said already: get your distro
shit together; go along with your hunch about slackware, ask
slackware specific questions on a slackware mailinglist/usenet group,
and post postfix
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:15, N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us wrote:
(I've installed PF on half a dozen Ubuntu boxes, with no hiccups
significant enough to remember.)
What I would say is that the differences between distros only involve
setup and maybe maintenance, and do not involve
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 13:13, Philipp Leusmann
philipp.leusm...@rwth-aachen.de wrote:
But I still get the odd
warning: read TCP map reply from localhost:1337: unexpected EOF (Success)
log entry. Is there missing anything?
I gather from the documentation the connection is maintained for more
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 15:04, markus reichelt m...@mareichelt.com wrote:
* Phil Howard ttip...@gmail.com wrote:
A single user scares you? Good heavens.
So what was my question specific to, if not Postfix? It certainly
was not specific to any distro. Postfix was the common element.
You
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:09, Stéphane MERLE
stephane.me...@distrigame.com wrote:
I would have 2 questions :
- 1 what is the procedure for postfix when it try to send email to a
domain with no MX record ?
like : dig mx elv.enic.fr
- 2 would that be an offense to refuse to
I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
transport) for this one. Attempts to send mail to
postmas...@newdomain.example.com gets Relay access denied, so it
clearly doesn't recognize the domain (I didn't
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 16:25, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
On 07/12/2010 09:53 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
transport) for this one. Attempts to send mail
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 19:02, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
virtual_alias_domains already defaults to virtual_alias_maps. But
that wasn't working.
If you believe it is broken then you must provide the evidence,
otherwise you are just spreading false rumors.
I'm
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:07, Simon Waters sim...@zynet.net wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2010 20:53:46 Phil Howard wrote:
I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
transport) for this one. Attempts to send
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 17:08, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:49:11PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_domains
So what if a given domain is, instead, going to have addresses
forwarded back
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:38, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some other address
(not all with the same domain) and sent on their way. Some of them
will be rewritten to addresses that do fall into other classes
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:53, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:38, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some other
In http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html this text ...
A null client is a machine that can only send mail. It receives no
mail from the network, and it does not deliver any mail locally. A
null client typically uses POP, IMAP or NFS for mailbox access.
... is confusing (the
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 14:17, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:38:17PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Phil Howard:
Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some other address
(not all with the same domain) and sent on their way
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 15:19, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:10PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
This is all documented Phil, please read more carefully, and if not sure
what something means, test your understanding in a test configuration
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:23, Jay G. Scott g...@arlut.utexas.edu wrote:
what's the deal w/ no configure script?
you do know that you DON'T NEED autoconf/automake to install, right?
they're not hiding behind that old dodge, are they? i'm so sick of
that.
if i supply a configure script,
For some of the smtpd restrictions I would like to merely tag a
message instead of outright reject it. It would be either delivered
as usual with the tagging in place for the client or user agent to
check for, or be used to deliver the mail to a special folder. If the
tagging is done by adding
I'm sending mail out through amavis for spam checking, and back in,
again. There are extra Received: headers being added. Is there a
way to either remove these, or customize them to X-Received: or
something? Amavis adds one and that's an amavis issue. Postfix adds
one coming back and that's
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
In postfix, you can use a header_checks IGNORE rule to remove unwanted
headers. Be careful that your rule only matches the exact header you want
to remove.
As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 16:35, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:29:51PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
OK, sot it will apply to all headers after the instant one is added.
Now the issue remains how to match the one just added and not others
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 17:21, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 05:01:59PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
my.mail.server (Postfix) with ESMTP id XX for
u...@example.com; Wed, 29 Dec 2010
With body checks, is there a way to insert a header or otherwise flag
the mail in a way CMUSieve could detect?
--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 17:27, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Phil Howard:
With body checks, is there a way to insert a header or otherwise flag
the mail in a way CMUSieve could detect?
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:12, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:47:10AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
Unlike some software, Postfix behaves as documented, so you can
easily establish from the manpage how the prepend action works.
So basically
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:53:56AM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm assuming the header checks and body checks is implemented as some
code that sees a stream, rather than the whole message (especially
when
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
with amavis, setup a spamassassin rule that matches your bizarre text.
fopr instance
body FOO_BAR_RULE /SomeExpression/i
score FOO_BAR_RULE 0.1
(0.1 is small enough to not alter spam status).
then FOO_BAR_RULE will appear in
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:20, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
another idea is to use the FILTER action to pass these messages to a
specific listener (smtpd) which prepends a header or rewrites the
recipient to recipient+s...@example.com (via a specific cleanup).
That's an interesting idea.
93 matches
Mail list logo
