--On 14 February 2012 05:24:18 + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
RFC 2821 covers (surprise!) SMTP, so the Received format documented
there is only for SMTP hops. For non-SMTP transactions, the looser
interpretation of 2822/5322 applies.
Thanks; that doesn't even appear to preclude an SMTP-like
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:17:42PM +, Alex Bligh wrote:
> >I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'll examine the RFC more closely and
> >see if that is specifically allowed.
>
> I'll save you the trouble - it is not allowed.
>
> RFC 2821 p51
RFC 2821 covers (surprise!) SMTP, so the Received forma
--On 13 February 2012 11:03:20 -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
I note that gmail appears to insert a Received: line with out
a "from" element, so I can't imagine any penalty will be significant.
I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'll examine the RFC more closely and
see if that is specifically allow
Noel, thanks for your patient response.
On 13/02/12 16:17, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:49 AM, li...@coffeehabit.net wrote:
I have been trying this, but for some reason it does not work. I
assume the wrapping doesn't matter, since the lines are different
lengths depending on the recipient
On 2/13/2012 10:51 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>
> --On 13 February 2012 10:17:21 -0600 Noel Jones
> wrote:
>
>> And if you mangle the Received: header, you should rename it to
>> X-Received: to keep spam scanners from penalizing you for an invalid
>> header.
>
> I'm not 100% convinced that is the
--On 13 February 2012 10:17:21 -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
And if you mangle the Received: header, you should rename it to
X-Received: to keep spam scanners from penalizing you for an invalid
header.
I'm not 100% convinced that is the right approach. If I send mail
to the final MTA without a
On 2/13/2012 9:49 AM, li...@coffeehabit.net wrote:
> I have been trying this, but for some reason it does not work. I
> assume the wrapping doesn't matter, since the lines are different
> lengths depending on the recipient server. Below is postfix (IPs
> redacted), Exchange gives longer lines.
On 13/02/12 15:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
So, what I did for future readers of the archives is have the following
line in header_checks:
/^Received: .*by (mail\.example\.com \(Postfix\) with
(ESMTPSA|SMTPSA|ESMTPA|SMTPSA).*)$/ REPLACE Received: by $1
This removes the inbound IP addresses data, but k
Wietse,
--On 13 February 2012 10:33:42 -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
...
Sure, but I am trying to fix problems one at a time. The confusion
that header_checks operates only on headers received from ANOTHER
server needs to be addressed first.
I don't see where the text implies that this Postfi
On 2/13/2012 9:24 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>
> --On 13 February 2012 09:04:12 -0500 Rod K wrote:
>
>> Here's what I did:
>
> So, what I did for future readers of the archives is have the following
> line in header_checks:
>
> /^Received: .*by (mail\.example\.com \(Postfix\) with
> (ESMTPSA|SMT
Alex Bligh:
> /^Received: .*by (mail\.example\.com \(Postfix\) with
..
> Note that this generates a warning from postmap about it looking like
You don't need to postmap a regexp/pcre file.
Wietse
Mark Goodge:
> On 13/02/2012 14:56, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alex Bligh:
> >> Wietse,
> >>
> >> --On 13 February 2012 07:31:58 -0500 Wietse Venema
> >> wrote:
> >>
> I've read the documentation on header_checks and it only *appears* to
> operate on headers received from another server. Wh
--On 13 February 2012 15:22:01 + Mark Goodge
wrote:
In particular, if you have a process called "RECEIVING MAIL" (as in
"FILTERS WHILE RECEIVING MAIL") then logically, one would expect Received
headers be added after that process is complete, as until it is complete
the mail has not yet
--On 13 February 2012 09:04:12 -0500 Rod K wrote:
Here's what I did:
So, what I did for future readers of the archives is have the following
line in header_checks:
/^Received: .*by (mail\.example\.com \(Postfix\) with
(ESMTPSA|SMTPSA|ESMTPA|SMTPSA).*)$/ REPLACE Received: by $1
This remo
On 13/02/2012 14:56, Wietse Venema wrote:
Alex Bligh:
Wietse,
--On 13 February 2012 07:31:58 -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
I've read the documentation on header_checks and it only *appears* to
operate on headers received from another server. What I want is
Please point out what text that is, a
--On 13 February 2012 09:56:19 -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
There is no statement about remote MTAs, so I don't see how I could
change the text to avoid making that impression.
I think simply adding to the first block ("FILTERS WHILE RECEVING MAIL")
the statement "Where Postfix adds a Recei
Alex Bligh:
> Wietse,
>
> --On 13 February 2012 07:31:58 -0500 Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>
> >> I've read the documentation on header_checks and it only *appears* to
> >> operate on headers received from another server. What I want is
> >
> > Please point out what text that is, and I will fix it.
Here's what I did:
Create file 'stripauth' with the following line:
/^(Received:.*)$/ REPLACE X-Recieved: From Authenticated User
In master.cf:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
-o smtpd_helo_restrict
On 2/13/2012 3:52 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> remove it). Are you saying that the Received: line is added prior
> to header_checks and header_checks can remove lines postfix itself
> added?
Yes, of course.
>
> (just to be clear, I run mail.example.com, and want to avoid having
> the header mail.exa
Wietse,
--On 13 February 2012 07:31:58 -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
I've read the documentation on header_checks and it only *appears* to
operate on headers received from another server. What I want is
Please point out what text that is, and I will fix it.
See
http://www.postfix.org/header
Alex Bligh:
> I've read the documentation on header_checks and it only *appears* to
> operate on headers received from another server. What I want is
Please point out what text that is, and I will fix it.
Wietse
Am 13.02.2012 10:52, schrieb Alex Bligh:
> Noel,
>
> --On 12 February 2012 18:50:26 -0600 Noel Jones
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/2012 2:21 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> A server I run (let's say mail.example.com) inserts a mail header
>>> similar to the one below, when it receives mail either via normal
>
Noel,
--On 12 February 2012 18:50:26 -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
On 2/12/2012 2:21 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
A server I run (let's say mail.example.com) inserts a mail header
similar to the one below, when it receives mail either via normal
SMTP from another MTA, or when it receives mail from an au
On 2/12/2012 2:21 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> A server I run (let's say mail.example.com) inserts a mail header
> similar to the one below, when it receives mail either via normal
> SMTP from another MTA, or when it receives mail from an authenticated
> MUA.
>
> Received: from [10.10.10.10] (1.1.200.1
Am 12.02.2012 21:21, schrieb Alex Bligh:
> A server I run (let's say mail.example.com) inserts a mail header
> similar to the one below, when it receives mail either via normal
> SMTP from another MTA, or when it receives mail from an authenticated
> MUA.
>
> Received: from [10.10.10.10] (1.1.20
A server I run (let's say mail.example.com) inserts a mail header
similar to the one below, when it receives mail either via normal
SMTP from another MTA, or when it receives mail from an authenticated
MUA.
Received: from [10.10.10.10] (1.1.200.192.example.com [192.200.1.1])
by mail.examp
26 matches
Mail list logo
