Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
>
> On 24-09-2024 20:28, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
> >> On 23-09-2024 00:11, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
> >>>> I'm sorry that I may have been a bit unc
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
>
> On 23-09-2024 00:11, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> I'm sorry that I may have been a bit unclear of my issue.
> >> I'm not confused about receiving the report, but the content of it.
> >> And what to change in my config so that I do not see fai
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:56:57AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 18:32:00 +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> > > This is not a release-notes-worthy change, just avoids loss of minor
> > > f
Danjel Jungersen:
>
>
> On 21 September 2024 14:13:49 CEST, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
> >> I see 3 things that worry me about this record:
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> >>
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
> I see 3 things that worry me about this record:
> *
>
>
>212.27.12.12
>2
>
> none
> fail
> fail
>
>
>
> some-real-receiver.tld
><>
Could that be a delivery status noti
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> hawky--- via Postfix-users:
> > Hi Wietse,
> >
> > we are struggling with t-online.de: As you may know as SMTP client you
> > have to fulfill a bunch of requirements to be able to send mails to
> > t-online.de. From tim
can pass on to their support people.
Wietse
> Thanks.
> --
> Hawky
>
>
> Am 20.09.2024 16:25 schrieb Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> > hawky--- via Postfix-users:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I'm looking for a way to process and deliver an
hawky--- via Postfix-users:
> Hi!
>
> I'm looking for a way to process and deliver an incoming email, but
> return an error (with a meaningful) message to the client.
>
> By looking at the SMTP status codes
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SMTP_server_return_codes) I don't
> see an obv
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > > Anonymous TLS connection established from X: TLSv1.3 with cipher
> > > TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> > > (128/128 bits) key-exchange x25519_kyber768 server-signature ECDSA
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 09:55:22AM -0500, Dan Lists via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > > How many distinct sender domains are in scope? If it is just a small
> > > handful, you can restriction classes:
> > >
> > > main.cf:
> > > smtpd_restriction_class
Mark Huizer via Postfix-users:
> If I then send mail going through the relay, and check the maillog for
> canonical lines and the envelope lines:
>
> Sep 16 08:15:58 s-mailrelay2 postfix/smtpd[95962]: <
> shell1.local.dohd.org[10.0.0.170]: MAIL FROM:
> SIZE=528
> Sep 16 08:15:58 s-mailrelay2 po
Marcus Park via Postfix-users:
>
>
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> > Marcus Park via Postfix-users:
> >> Hello postifx,
> >>
> >> I am getting trouble in the unwanted email delivery.
> >>
> >> Say my hostname is "foo.com&quo
Marcus Park via Postfix-users:
> Hello postifx,
>
> I am getting trouble in the unwanted email delivery.
>
> Say my hostname is "foo.com" (what 'hostname' command shows).
> And I do have the same domain name "foo.com" setup in
> /etc/postfix/virtual_mailbox_domain.
As documented, mail for *all*
Dan Lists via Postfix-users:
> I have a small email relay server that is used to allow IOT devices to send
> email. Some of those devices do not do authentication. I'd like to
> restrict the sender domain based on the IP.
>
> I'm looking for something like smtpd_sender_login_maps, but for clien
Jens Hoffrichter via Postfix-users:
> Hi!
>
> We are running a pretty big postfix installation for a big corporate customer.
>
> Next week, there are migrations in the backend for some mailboxes, and
> the inbound mail for these mailboxes should be put on hold on the
> postfix directly before it
Rejaine Da Silveira Monteiro via Postfix-users:
> There is anyway to resend saved eml files using postfix?
The preferred way to resend such mail is to create a new message,
and to attach the eml file as attachment type message/rfc822.
The Postfix interface for sending messages from file is /usr/b
Felix Ingram via Postfix-users:
> Hello all,
>
> I've written a program to be the final destination for mail using
> pipe.8. I'm reading the message in from stdin, and it appears that
> lines end with \n rather than \r\n, which is then causing parsing
> issues in another part of my app.
'\n' is th
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
> 127.0.0.1:10025 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o content_filter=
> -o local_recipient_maps=
> -o relay_recipient_maps=
> -o smtpd_restriction_classes=
> -o smtpd_client_restrictions=
> -o smtpd_helo_restrictions=
>
Anton Hofland via Postfix-users:
> I have this milter that sits on a server which is not directly
> connected to the internet. Instead there is an internet facing firewall
> mail server in front of it which has all the usual defences. There are
> many reasons for this, some of which are just my pre
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> > >That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
> > >folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
> > Sorry, could have been more clear about
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
>
> On 09-09-2024 13:46, chandan via Postfix-users wrote:
> > On 2024-09-09 10:53, Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> Hey!
> >>
> >> I have set up clamav, and I think it works
> >> But when a mail is recieved, it is first scanned by rspamd and th
Danjel Jungersen via Postfix-users:
> Hey!
>
> I have set up clamav, and I think it works
> But when a mail is recieved, it is first scanned by rspamd and then
> clamav. Thats all fine.
> But when clamav is done, rspamd scans it again.
> My setup is debian, postfix, rspamd, clamav, dovecot.
>
LinuxMail.cc via Postfix-users:
>
>
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > Don't set
> >
> > smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt
> >
> > in main.cf. Instead use a master.cf override for just the port 25
> > service:
> >
> > smtp inet n - n - - s
hostmaster--- via Postfix-users:
> Hi all
>
> I'm struggling with smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt.
>
> I have a postfix installation/configuration with smtpd_tls_security_level =
> may and public (letsencrypt) certificates running nicely since years.
> Postfix is offering STARTTLS upon connect
Gilgongo via Postfix-users:
> I notice Spamhaus say that for smaller hosts, RBL blocking at smtp level is
> not recommended, and instead it?s better to use a milter for RBL checking.
>
> https://docs.spamhaus.com/datasets/docs/source/40-real-world-usage/PublicMirrors/MTAs/030-Sendmail.html
Only a
chandan via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-09-05 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > There is no hard requirement to fold at 78 characters, the limit is 998
> > bytes. And Message-Id SHOULD not be folded, even if over 78 bytes
> > long.
> >
> > I think it is fine for Postfix to tr
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> >That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
> >folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
> Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
> occur after the header label according to the non
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> When sending a mail with a folded message-id header according to [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2%29 |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2 ] and
> [ https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_threa
LinuxMail.cc via Postfix-users:
>
> Hello,
>
> In my main.cf I have this setting,
>
> smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = yes
>
> which I know the reason for existing.
>
> But in master.cf I see this option,
>
> submission inet n - y - - smtpd
>-o smtpd_reject_unl
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> I rather expect the problem was at the TCP layer, perhaps a bug
> similar to:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=191336
>
> https://engineering.skroutz.gr/blog/uncovering-a-24-year-old-bug-in-the-linux-kernel/
> ...
A session hang/dro
Glen via Postfix-users:
> Just joined and don't know if anyone can help. Hopefully someone can.
> Recently, my mail server appears to have been attached.
> I have blocked the subnet of the offender at my Firewall.
> Server Centos 7, running postfix for many years
>
> Problem:
>
> * ?Postfix do
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
>
>
>
> > $ postqueue; echo $?
> > postqueue: fatal: usage: postqueue -f | postqueue -i queueid | postqueue -j
> > | postqueue -p | postqueue -s site
> > 69
> >
> > With an empty mail queue:
> >
> > $ postqueue -p; echo $?
> > Mail queue is empty
> > 0
> >
> >
Michael Orlitzky via Postfix-users:
> On Sun, 2024-09-01 at 04:41 +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > How did you get Postfix to believe its version is "3.9". There was
> > never such a release. Official Postfix release versions always have
> > a micro "patch level".
>
> L
Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users:
> Don't know whether it's a Gentoo specific issue, but Postfix failed to
> restart after update because the new lib directory was created as
> /usr/lib64/postfix/3.9, not /usr/lib64/postfix/3.9.0.
That's a Gentoo thing.
Wietse
_
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
>
>
>
> > They should instead read output from "postqueue -j" which provides
> > information in JSON format. JSON support was added in Postfix 3.1
> > (i.e. in 2015).
> >
>
> What are the minimum permissions required for postqueue ?
The postqueue command is exec
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> > Aug 22 01:36:33 iceman postfix-199/smtpd[584336]: connect from
> > > mail-dm6nam04on2133.outbound.protection.outlook.com[40.107.102.133]
> > > Aug 22 01:36:34 iceman postfix-199/smtpd[584336]: A5C9812D6:
> > > client=mail-dm6nam04on2133.outbound.protection.o
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using postfix-3.8.5 on fedora40 with pypolicyd-spf-3.0.4 and some
> senders are experiencing weird timeout issues when trying to send to
> us:
>
> 8/22/2024 2:08:25 PM - Server at
> SA1PR22MB4256.namprd22.prod.outlook.com returned '550 5.4.300 Message
> expir
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> >
> > >
> > > Data collecting programs should use supported interfaces such as
> > > postqueue output. If the supported interfaces are not sufficient,
> > > people can ask for or c
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
>
> >
> > Data collecting programs should use supported interfaces such as
> > postqueue output. If the supported interfaces are not sufficient,
> > people can ask for or contribute what's missing.
> >
> > Wietse
>
>
> Thanks Wietse.
>
> The only reason I was pl
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> In its default configuration, Postfix makes /var/spool/postfix/public/qmgr
> world accessible whilst the parent directory /var/spool/postfix/public
> is not.
The effect of permissions on UNIX-domain sockets is system dependent
(in other words, not all the world is
Jyan Ren via Postfix-users:
> Dear Postfix Support Team,
> Sorry to interrupt, but I hope this email finds you well.
> I'm deploying postfix on my vps, but my ISP has blocked outbound traffic on
> port 25. To bypass this restriction, I am considering using a VPN based on
> the socks5 protocol to
Bryan K. Walton via Postfix-users:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 07:37:19AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > > It then sent a bounce message to root's mailbox. The bounce message
> > > included a delivery report and the undelivered message headers.
> > > However, the rest o
Etienne Gladu via Postfix-users:
> In short, I want postfix to change the recipient of all email going through
> port 7025, 7026, etc
> In exemple : email came from port 7025, then redirect/change recipient to
> d...@test.ca
> if its 7026, redirect/change recipient to a...@test.ca
The client (an
Corey H via Postfix-users:
> Hello list,
>
> I saw many logs like this in our server log,
>
> Aug 9 19:48:27 mx postfix/submission/smtpd[3731732]: warning:
> unknown[5.31.8.57]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6
> Aug 9 19:48:27 mx postfix/submission/smtpd[3731732]: too many error
John Fawcett via Postfix-users:
>
> On 08/08/2024 22:36, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Paul Menzel via Postfix-users:
> >>> Stack trace of thread 468215:
> >>> #0 0x00404610 strlcpy (vacation
Paul Menzel via Postfix-users:
> > Stack trace of thread 468215:
> > #0 0x00404610 strlcpy (vacation + 0x4610)
> > #1 0x00402e0e main (vacation + 0x2e0e)
> > #2 0x7f2a6f8a0088 __libc_start_call_main (libc.so.
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:13?PM Wietse Venema via Postfix-users <
> postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> > Alex via Postfix-users:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've migrated my config and user data from a
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I've migrated my config and user data from a fedora38 system to a fedora40
> system with postfix-3.8.5 and now vacation is segfaulting for some users. I
> don't understand why it's failing for some while succeeding for others.
>
> Aug 8 12:44:00 cipher postfix/l
First, why use SASL auth? It needs a database. Have you considered
more scalable alternatives such as TLS client certificates?
Postfix can use certificate fingerprints instead of PKI.
Second, if you must use SASL auth:
What is the authentication backend database query latency? Have you
looked at
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Stuart Armstrong via Postfix-users:
> > Thank you for your response. For clarity, this issue has been present
> > for several weeks now.
> >
> > > warning: SASL: Connect to Dovecot auth socket 'private/auth'
> >
Stuart Armstrong via Postfix-users:
> Thank you for your response. For clarity, this issue has been present
> for several weeks now.
>
> > warning: SASL: Connect to Dovecot auth socket 'private/auth'
> > failed: REASON FOR FAILURE HERE
> I do not have this warning in the logs.
All the d
Martin Stenzel via Postfix-users:
>
> Thank you, but I want to know about the last of the rules that was
> applied to an email, not the general configuration.
Output from this command:
postconf smtpd_recipient_restrictions
That is what gets parsed.
If you want to test what happens when a
Stuart Armstrong via Postfix-users:
> Hello,
>
> Currently our Postfix server is experiencing a problem with intermittent
> SASL auth problems.
With all the useless debug logging you forgot to include this
important log message:
warning: SASL: Connect to Dovecot auth socket 'private/auth'
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> I am running an instance of Postfix that is an authenticated relay.
>
> Overall it is working great except user IPs are leaking through Received
> headers.
>
> I thought I configured it right, but obviously not.
>
> Here's what I've done:
>
> 1/ Create header_c
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> If you must route mail for ARBITRARY DESTINATIONS depending on what
> service it was received with, then in many cases you will need
> separate Postfix instances.
Sorry, make that: if you must route mail for any destination depending
on what servi
D?vis Mos?ns:
> piektd., 2024. g. 2. aug., plkst. 02:46 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema
> () rakst?ja:
> >
> > D?vis Mos?ns via Postfix-users:
> > > ceturtd., 2024. g. 1. aug., plkst. 09:10 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema via
> > > Postfix-users () rakst?ja:
> >
Wesley via Postfix-users:
> Hello
>
> I have a question about forwarding email to Gmail. Gmail requires the
> sender to provide identity authentication, including SPF or DKIM. Some
> of our old customers do not have dkim configured in their email system,
> but they do have spf. There is no prob
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
> I'm using postfix-3.8.5 on fedora40 and having a problem with forwarding
> mail from our relay to gmail recipients. We have some users using
> ~/.forward files to individual gmail accounts. Obviously not ideal, but I
> hoped openarc could help alleviate some of those
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Arnie T via Postfix-users:
> > main.cf:
> > var_SHDQS=xxx
> > postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map =
> > texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map
> >
> > cat /etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsb
Arnie T via Postfix-users:
> main.cf:
> var_SHDQS=xxx
> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map =
> texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map
>
> cat /etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map
> ${var_SHDQS}.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.[2..11] 554
> $rbl_class $rbl
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> You need to use the same table for both smtpd(8) and postscreen(8).
> That is:
>
> rbl_reply_maps = ... some table ...
> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = ... same table ...
>
> And of course that table needs to match all the applicable keys.
This is impor
Jesper Dybdal via Postfix-users:
> I'm about to upgrade my Debian system to Bookworm, and thus to postfix 3.7.
>
> That will allow me to use "local_login_sender_maps". I have a few
> stupid questions about that:
>
> * What is the precise syntax of the right-hand-side patterns? Does
> ".examp
D?vis Mos?ns via Postfix-users:
> ceturtd., 2024. g. 1. aug., plkst. 09:10 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema via
> Postfix-users () rakst?ja:
> >
> > Davis Mosans via Postfix-users:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm trying to setup Postfix in a way that will for
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> >> > Is there anyway to get postfix to assign the queueId before invoking
> >> > the milters during the rcpt-to stage?
> >>
> >> smtpd_delay_open_until_valid_rcpt = no
> >
> >
> > Almost: the RCPT TO is valid AFTER the Milter accepts it.
That is the case with "sm
Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-08-01 at 16:04:59 UTC-0400 (Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:04:59 -0400)
> postfix--- via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Im sure the answer is NO, but you don't know if you don't ask.
>
> You're wrong :)
>
> > Is there anyway to get postfix to assign t
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 01:10:46PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > > > Now I tried to redirect mails from my private address sent to anybody
> > > > at charite.de to be redirected to someone else in th
Davis Mosans via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to setup Postfix in a way that will forward/relay all mail
> on SMTP port 25 but send out (don't forward) email when receiving on
> submission port 465.
You cant to receive email on port 465 and want to send that out to
the internet? That requi
> I came across something that I have not seen before: a domain (call it
> example.com) that has no email addresses. No one sends or receives email
> for that domain.
If there is no email from sen...@example.com, the domain should say
so in SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and so on. Cloudflare has a webpage o
I have updated some documentation:
> > We have an always_bcc setup in place for incoming mails:
> >
> > recipient_bcc_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/backup_bcc.pcre
> >
> > /^(.*)@charite\.de$/backup+${1}=charite.de@backup.invalid
Added to the text for always_bcc, sender_bcc_maps, recipie
Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users:
> We have an always_bcc setup in place for incoming mails:
>
> recipient_bcc_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/backup_bcc.pcre
>
> /^(.*)@charite\.de$/backup+${1}=charite.de@backup.invalid
>
> Now I tried to redirect mails from my private address sent to an
Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users:
> > Jul 31 09:24:13 mail-cbf-int postfix/error[2664442]: 4WYk9n2SK3z20ycy:
> > to=,
> > orig_to=, relay=none,
> > delay=0.62, delays=0.57/0.02/0/0.03, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (User
> > unknown)
>
> It works, if I replace toscx.hrn...@charite.de with the ac
John Thorvald Wodder II via Postfix-users:
> On Jul 30, 2024, at 15:36, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > John Thorvald Wodder II via Postfix-users:
> >> (I previously posted this request for help on ServerFault but got
> >> no responses
John Thorvald Wodder II via Postfix-users:
> (I previously posted this request for help on ServerFault but got
> no responses, so I'm hoping the official Postfix mailing list will
> go better.)
Your access tables can only affect the client DNS domain name, and
domain names that appear in SMTP comm
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:23:28AM +0100, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > What do others do with DMARC? I'm inclined to just gradually turn up the SA
> > scores on SPF/DKIM failures instead, if only because
> > Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC isn't i
export--- via Postfix-users:
> Here is my Main.cf file ( I deleted only my network details).
For better support:
- Output from the command "postconf -nf"
- Output from the command "postconf -Mf"
- Postfix logging for the failing delivery.
You can edit email addresses and IP addresses, but m
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 03:48:42PM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Isn't there any possibility to use a dedicated transport to such a broken
> > server, with settings that force use of TLS to deliver the message
> > regardless of target s
export--- via Postfix-users:
> Sent email returns with the error
>
> #5.7.0 Must issue a STARTTLS command first (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
>
> How can I correct that error?
> Thank you for help
Assuming that the actual message was:
530 5.7.0 Must issue a STARTTLS command first
* If t
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:37:19PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but the chrooted smtpd(8) process reads:
> > >
> > > /var/spool/
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 09:37:19PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the chrooted smtpd(8) process reads:
> >
> > /var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
> >
> > rather than /etc/resolv.conf, because that's what chroot jails do.
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> I'm getting the following in my logs:
>
> "warning: connect to pgsql server foo.example.com: could not
> translate host name "foo.example.com" to address: Temporary failure
> in name resolution?"
That is a text from the pgsql library.
> But I cannot understand w
Keith:
> If you are interested and I do not subsequently break your head can I
> ask some questions as to how to find snippets of your code that might
> do things related to those questions so I can fail to make sense of
> them and rob them to try and implement a/my thing?
I'm afraid that there is
Bob via Postfix-users:
> Having put my foot in it by suggesting that Postfix might make calls to
> external functions requiring root access, in particular IPTables, what
> if Postfix had its own version of IPtables.
It was decided long ago that Postfix will be extensible with different
tools from
postfix--- via Postfix-users:
> > what's the main difference between a policy server and a milter?
>
>
> Policy Server:
> - Coded quickly in scripting language
> - Lightweight, simple, and fast to setup
> - Is only provided limited header information by postfix for evaluating
No headers or
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> Keith wrote in
> :
> |Hmm Policy Server. Do I have to install one and read the Man Pages?
> |
> |Then again I might take heart from the suggestion that this has been
> |done before although the mention of blocklisting and coloured flags
> |suggests others
Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users:
> I'm sure postfix can be configured to use normal log files, or is that
> something that has to be made available at build-time?
https://www.postfix.org/MAILLOG_README.html
Available with Postfix version 3.4 or later. This includes logging
to stdout while runn
Bob via Postfix-users:
> As a further ramble headers_checks, a line in mine, looks like this
>
> /ional.co.uk/ REJECT No Spam Please.
>
> At the eame time that Postfix triggers on the match it must know the IP
> address that was associated with the trigger. Instead of the above...
>
> /ional.co.
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> On Jul 22, 2024, at 5:00?PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> >>> You will need SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with 'p=reject'. If this is
> >>> an interacti
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> > You will need SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with 'p=reject'. If this is
> > an interactive list, you will need to replace list member's From:
> > headers with your mailing list address to satisfy DMARC.
>
> I believe I have SPF, DKIM and DMARC setup with p=reject.
>
>
Austin Witmer via Postfix-users:
> Hello all!
>
> I recently added mlmmj as a mailing list manager to my postfix server.
>
> My concern is that I don't overwhelm the big boys (yahoo, google,
> iCloud) and have them rate limit me because I am sending to too
> many addresses to quickly.
>
> Here a
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> Thank you! changing from 'error' to 'smtp' did indeed do the trick.
>
> Follow up, I clearly have a config ported over time, I see that
> `smtpd_relay_restrictions` is perhaps what I now want to use instead
> of `smtpd_recipient_restrictions`
>
> It appears to be
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> I'm in the process of rebuilding a mail relay server from Centos 7 (postfix
> 2.10.x) -> Ubuntu 22 (Postfix 3.6.x).
>
> This is a mail relay server that will relay mail for our customers if their
> IP is whitelisted in /etc/postfix/access. We have no local users an
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> On a possibly related note, recent versions of man now produce a stack of
> warnings for postconf.f (this is the first one, there are 244, one for each
> line of the man page):
>
> warning: cannot select font 'C' [usr/share/man/man5/postconf.5.gz:1]
I recall
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> Thanks for the replies, a few comments below from a few replies:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:45?AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas via
> Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > "smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no" is why recipient is not rejected on
> > port 587.
>
> Can this
Chris Wopat via Postfix-users:
> I'm in the process of rebuilding a mail relay server from Centos 7 (postfix
> 2.10.x) -> Ubuntu 22 (Postfix 3.6.x).
>
> This is a mail relay server that will relay mail for our customers if their
> IP is whitelisted in /etc/postfix/access. We have no local users an
Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users:
> Unfortunately, I got distracted from reporting back on this again. Sorting
> AUXLIBS is also needed to make things reproducible:
>
> Index: postfix/makedefs
> ===
> --- postfix.orig/makedefs
> ++
Peter via Postfix-users:
> On 20/07/24 00:30, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> Just to throw another wrench in the works, MariaDB lists mysql_options()
> >> as deprecated in MariaDB Connector/C 3.0 and recommends mysql_optionsv()
> >> instead:
>
Peter via Postfix-users:
> On 19/07/24 11:59, Robert Fuhrer via Postfix-users wrote:
> >> Where does that number come from? It needs to be a version that
> >> introduces all the the MYSQL_OPT_SSL_XXX features that Postfix
> >> needs. This is the preferred API, and it won't be removed in another
> >
Robert Fuhrer via Postfix-users:
> > I couldn't find a suitable "capability macro", i.e., something
> >> that signals at the preprocessor level that the new options API
> >> is available.
> >>
> >> Instead, I replaced the #if-test in your patch with just:
> >>
> >> #if MYSQL_VERSION_ID >= 80035
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work as is, b/c one can't use the C
> preprocessor "defined()" operator on enum symbols, which the various
> MYSQL_OPT_SSL_* symbols all are. You can basically only reference
> preprocessor macro symbols in the #if-test.
>
> (BTW, the patch you inlined didn't have a lea
Robert Fuhrer via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> MacOS ships with an ancient version of PostFix (3.2.2!).
>
> I already have PostFix running nicely, but I have no idea when Apple will
> update PostFix, or worse, remove it altogether (!), so I'm building PostFix
> 3.9.0 from source.
>
> The only err
1 - 100 of 9292 matches
Mail list logo
