* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
>> The server hosting the Postfix website, run by yours truly, is neither
>> located in Germany, nor is it a Tor exit node.
>
> As for TOR, some sites may have stale or inaccurate data:
>
>
* Eddie Rowe via Postfix-users:
> I have been cutoff from the Postfix web site due to it apparently
> being a TOR exit node in Germany.
The server hosting the Postfix website, run by yours truly, is neither
located in Germany, nor is it a Tor exit node.
-Ralph
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> The requested filter is much too crude. How would the OP, for example,
> have participated in this thread with that filter in place!
I agree that the filter the OP asked for is a dumb idea, but milter-
regex can nonetheless provide the functionality that
* true kernel via Postfix-users:
> What are the plugins or filters for postfix to stop sending a special
> message body?
You could try milter-regex (https://www.benzedrine.ch/milter-regex.html).
-Ralph
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> Relax, that wasn't an attack on you. There's no need to defend your
> honour... :-)
That's not always easy to determine, especially given the constraints of
non-verbal communication. I'll take your word for it, of course. ;-)
> I would like to suggest that
* Jim Popovitch via Postfix-users:
> On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 17:35 +0200, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over
>> the past 2 years or so, which is sad really.
>
> It's not sad at all. It's a testament to the stability of the
* Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users:
> I don't need tags.
Seconded. Do we really need to cater for software that's unable to use
the "List-Id" headers? These are mailing lists for Postfix users and
devs, not for a knitting circle, so I think it is fair to assume we
subscribers all use decent
* Robert A. via Postfix-users Cooper:
> Some of us don't have a choice and are stuck with MS mail products due
> to work policies. while OWA does now support header filtering, that
> has not always been the case.
So you are saying that even Microsoft has finally seen the light. Good,
it took
* Peter Ajamian via Postfix-users:
> Verify return code: 10 (certificate has expired)
Thanks. For some reason, the web server had not been restarted after the
last certificate update, which normally happens automatically. I just
restarted the server process manually.
-Ralph
* Ken Peng via Postfix-users:
> Using rspamd instead of postscreen?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
If you suggest relying on rspamd only, and forgo postscreen, I have to
disagree. In my experience, postscreen has proven highly useful in spam
prevention, in particular when DNSBL
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> The "post hooks" in certbot are not *reliable*.
For the curious among you: I use dehydrated [1], which integrates nicely
with my other automation, including Ansible [2]. An Ansible handler is
used to restart the web server if certificates were updated, and
* Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
> Some clients abuse the outgoing smtp server for sending bulk messages.
> [...] Do you know how to stop this behavior?
There is 'default_destination_recipient_limit' to limit the number of
recipients per message delivery. If however the abuser uses only a few
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> As a few on this list may recall, it is 25 years ago today that the
> "IBM secure mailer" had its public beta release.
Time flies, no doubt about that. I find it comforting that Postfix has
earned its place as a cornerstone of e-mail around the globe, based
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service [...]
Gee, who woulda thunk? ;-) That being said, perhaps somebody on the
"mailop" mailing list would be able to offer more insight? Some exotic
extension, perhaps, or a weird application level firewall? I sure hope
it is not a
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 07:29:40PM +0100, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> so next is gentoo ebuilds ? :)
>
> No. There is no Postfix binary release build farm, and nobody has
> volunteered to coördinate binary release engineering at the
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
>> Now that I think of it again, I wonder if the reload command is even
>> necessary?
>
> Yes, because it is implemented in the queue manager which is a
> long-running process.
Thank you. I have been using the reload step for so long, but I could
not recall why
* Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
>> I am positive that I personally rebooted this server a number of times
>> following Kernel updates, the last of which happened not long ago. ;-)
>
> If there's a virtualization layer, they are likely to be referring to
> the real physical host rather than the VM
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#defer_transports
Indeed. In my backup scripts, I like to use something like the following
(from memory only, beware of possible typos):
postconf -e defer_transports=lmtp,local,virtual && postfix reload
Now that I
* Byung-Hee HWANG via Postfix-users:
> Honestly, 311 it was not easy to set up to me.
These days, one is a bit spoiled for choice when it comes to software
which handles this automatically. LetsDNS (https://letsdns.org) is what
I use and recommend, unsurprisingly, because it is robust and easy
The Postfix website is available again. The company hosting the server
hardware informed me that there are "some issues with the PXE feature
with this server model", whatever that means exactly, which their staff
was able to fix in the meantime. I find it interesting how this
particular server has
* Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users:
> Maybe it wasn't rebooted until now? (as PXE is a boot-related feature) :)
I am positive that I personally rebooted this server a number of times
following Kernel updates, the last of which happened not long ago. ;-)
My guess is that the hosting company made
* Peng via Postfix-users:
> Gmail/fastmail rely more on DKIM than SPF.
What makes you assume that? Sending mail to f...@gmail.com works with SPF
alone, in the absense of DKIM. I have not tried the reverse (DKIM
without SPF) yet.
-Ralph
___
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Postfix stable release 3.9.0 is available. Postfix 3.5 - 3.8 were
> updated earlier this week; after that, Postfix 3.5 will no longer
> be updated.
Thank you for your continued work. By "you" I mean not only Wietse, but
also the other contributors who
* Juerg Reimann via Postfix-users:
> So, but now I still have to filter such incoming mail in a way that I'd be
> able to block certain senders by their *header* From: on a user basis.
I heartily recommend milter-regex [1]. It serves me well by allowing me
to configure all kinds of complex
* mattpr via Postfix-users:
> Adding email aliases to an email client doesn't make sense because
> there are just too many and I wouldn't want to have to pick one.
Pick one what? Pick an alias, I presume, or pick a mail client (MUA)?
> Last count I had ~2500 records in my password manager (not
25 matches
Mail list logo
