Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: holding local delivery

Expand Messages
  • Wietse Venema
    ... Another option is postconf -e master_service_disable = unix.local Or even: postconf -e master_service_disable = qmgr.fifo (requires Postfix 2.6 or
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Vernon A. Fort:
      > The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
      > for 1d. The sole issues is to prevent mail from bouncing back if we
      > don't get the encrypted volume mounted and cyrus started back up soon
      > enough. A reasonable example would be if the server rebooted due to a
      > power hiccup and we did not get the notifications quick enough.
      >
      > For now, i have a startup script to set the maximal_queue_lifetime to 1w
      > using postconf -e. This seems to do the trick.

      Another option is

      postconf -e "master_service_disable = unix.local"

      Or even:

      postconf -e "master_service_disable = qmgr.fifo"

      (requires Postfix 2.6 or later).

      Wietse
    • J.R.Ewing
      Hello people, Iam trying to solv a problem with relaying. I want to setup a distribution list for one domain, where will postfix only relay email for
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello people,

        Iam trying to solv a problem with relaying. I want to setup a
        distribution list for one domain, where will postfix only relay email
        for mydomain.com to selected users email addresses. No local mailboxes,
        only realaying list. Its quite simple, but.. but if I try to relay email
        comming from SPF active (has active SPF in DNS) server and it is relayed
        to SPF protected server (checking validity of sending server if SPF is
        present in DNS for the sending domain), it is rejected, because of
        course my server is not valid sending server for that domain.
        Is there any solution?
        I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
        sender. Is it possible with postfix?

        Thanks

        J.R.
      • Ralf Hildebrandt
        ... Yes, SRS -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 |
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          * J.R.Ewing <jr.ewing@...>:
          > Hello people,
          >
          > Iam trying to solv a problem with relaying. I want to setup a
          > distribution list for one domain, where will postfix only relay email
          > for mydomain.com to selected users email addresses. No local
          > mailboxes, only realaying list. Its quite simple, but.. but if I try
          > to relay email comming from SPF active (has active SPF in DNS) server
          > and it is relayed to SPF protected server (checking validity of
          > sending server if SPF is present in DNS for the sending domain), it
          > is rejected, because of course my server is not valid sending server
          > for that domain.
          > Is there any solution?

          Yes, SRS
          --
          Ralf Hildebrandt
          Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
          Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
          Campus Benjamin Franklin
          Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
          Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
          ralf.hildebrandt@... | http://www.charite.de
        • Ralf Hildebrandt
          ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Rewriting_Scheme -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            * Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...>:

            > Yes, SRS

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Rewriting_Scheme

            --
            Ralf Hildebrandt
            Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
            Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
            Campus Benjamin Franklin
            Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
            Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
            ralf.hildebrandt@... | http://www.charite.de
          • Simon Waters
            ... As Ralph says SRS will do this. However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I d need SRS, and after reviewing the various issues and
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
              >
              > Is there any solution?
              > I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
              > sender. Is it possible with postfix?

              As Ralph says SRS will do this.

              However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need SRS,
              and after reviewing the various issues and SPF adoption figures, concluded
              I'd ignore SPF.

              In particular very few people reject outright on SPF failure (not least this
              isn't a good strategy compared to other filtering methods if all you want to
              do is reduce spam). Various systems handle SPF failed email in a more
              suspicious manner, but that isn't a practical problem in my experience.

              SRS might work better for your purpose, but SPF is broken by design and you
              should flag that to the people using it.

              We forward a lot of email, we don't do envelope rewriting, and have had a
              handful of complaints over the years, most from the same person who didn't
              seem to understand "we have no plans to change at this time".
            • Larry Stone
              ... One day is pretty short. The default is five days. Although things are a lot more reliable these days, it s still possible for an unattended destination
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On 3/31/10 11:03 PM, Vernon A. Fort at vfort@... wrote:


                > The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
                > for 1d.

                One day is pretty short. The default is five days. Although things are a lot
                more reliable these days, it's still possible for an unattended destination
                server to be down over a weekend or be down for long periods for an upgrade,
                etc.

                --
                Larry Stone
                lstone19@...
                http://www.stonejongleux.com/
              • J.R.Ewing
                ... Thanks Simon and Ralf for replies, I was observing SRS and it lookslike there is not a simple way to implement it with postfix. Because Iam just starting
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Simon Waters napsal(a):
                  > On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
                  >> Is there any solution?
                  >> I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
                  >> sender. Is it possible with postfix?
                  >
                  > As Ralph says SRS will do this.
                  >
                  > However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need SRS,
                  > and after reviewing the various issues and SPF adoption figures, concluded
                  > I'd ignore SPF.
                  >
                  > In particular very few people reject outright on SPF failure (not least this
                  > isn't a good strategy compared to other filtering methods if all you want to
                  > do is reduce spam). Various systems handle SPF failed email in a more
                  > suspicious manner, but that isn't a practical problem in my experience.
                  >
                  > SRS might work better for your purpose, but SPF is broken by design and you
                  > should flag that to the people using it.
                  >
                  > We forward a lot of email, we don't do envelope rewriting, and have had a
                  > handful of complaints over the years, most from the same person who didn't
                  > seem to understand "we have no plans to change at this time".


                  Thanks Simon and Ralf for replies,

                  I was observing SRS and it lookslike there is not a simple way to
                  implement it with postfix.
                  Because Iam just starting to relaying at my server, I will let some time
                  to see, if there are some major problems with it or if it works
                  unnoticed for users. Sad is, that the major freemail provider
                  (seznam.cz) here in Czech Republic sadly implement and enforce SPF, the
                  question is, how many domains that our users would be recieving from are
                  SPF "protected" (I know only one, at domain of our company :-/).

                  Thanks again

                  J.R
                • Wietse Venema
                  ... make that: local.unix (the connection type comes last).
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wietse Venema:
                    > Vernon A. Fort:
                    > > The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
                    > > for 1d. The sole issues is to prevent mail from bouncing back if we
                    > > don't get the encrypted volume mounted and cyrus started back up soon
                    > > enough. A reasonable example would be if the server rebooted due to a
                    > > power hiccup and we did not get the notifications quick enough.
                    > >
                    > > For now, i have a startup script to set the maximal_queue_lifetime to 1w
                    > > using postconf -e. This seems to do the trick.
                    >
                    > Another option is
                    >
                    > postconf -e "master_service_disable = unix.local"

                    make that: local.unix (the connection type comes last).

                    > Or even:
                    >
                    > postconf -e "master_service_disable = qmgr.fifo"
                    >
                    > (requires Postfix 2.6 or later).
                    >
                    > Wietse
                    >
                    >
                  • ram
                    ... SPF if not the only reason why you would need SRS. We provide SMTP relay for various mail servers. I want to make sure that every customer uses only his
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 2, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:14 +0000, Simon Waters wrote:
                      > On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Is there any solution?
                      > > I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
                      > > sender. Is it possible with postfix?
                      >
                      > As Ralph says SRS will do this.
                      >
                      > However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need SRS,
                      > and after reviewing the various issues and SPF adoption figures, concluded
                      > I'd ignore SPF.
                      >
                      > In particular very few people reject outright on SPF failure (not least this
                      > isn't a good strategy compared to other filtering methods if all you want to
                      > do is reduce spam). Various systems handle SPF failed email in a more
                      > suspicious manner, but that isn't a practical problem in my experience.
                      >
                      > SRS might work better for your purpose, but SPF is broken by design and you
                      > should flag that to the people using it.
                      >
                      > We forward a lot of email, we don't do envelope rewriting, and have had a
                      > handful of complaints over the years, most from the same person who didn't
                      > seem to understand "we have no plans to change at this time".

                      SPF if not the only reason why you would need SRS.
                      We provide SMTP relay for various mail servers.
                      I want to make sure that every customer uses only his domain(s) and
                      sends the mail. Important to implement proper usage reporting as well as
                      stop abuse of network



                      Thanks
                      Ram





                      PS: SPF is used by gmail,hotmail, aol and 40% of the fortune 500
                      companies in the world among a huge lot of others. I dont think it
                      makes any sense to flag anything like "SPF is broken" to so many people.
                      Anyway discussing rising SPF adoption and the unreasonable arguments
                      against SPF is OT on the postfix mailing list.
                    • Wietse Venema
                      ... Postfix supports DKIM, DomainKeys, SPF, SRS, SenderID, etc., etc., via Milter plugins or SMTP-based content filters. Wietse
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 2, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ram:
                        >
                        > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 12:14 +0000, Simon Waters wrote:
                        > > On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Is there any solution?
                        > > > I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
                        > > > sender. Is it possible with postfix?

                        Postfix supports DKIM, DomainKeys, SPF, SRS, SenderID, etc., etc.,
                        via Milter plugins or SMTP-based content filters.

                        Wietse
                      • Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa
                        Hi! This is getting interesting..... How, exactly, does mailman (or other mailing list manager) handles this? I mean, I have seen several SPF-enabled domains,
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi!

                          This is getting interesting..... How, exactly, does mailman (or other
                          mailing list manager) handles this? I mean, I have seen several
                          SPF-enabled domains, and these domains have subscriptions to one or
                          more lists... now, reading the headers for one of the messages of this
                          lists, I got this:

                          Sender: owner-postfix-users@...

                          So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
                          address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?

                          What do you think?

                          lldefonso Camargo
                        • Sahil Tandon
                          ... SPF is against the ENVELOPE, not the HEADER. -- Sahil Tandon
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sat, 03 Apr 2010, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:

                            > So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
                            > address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?

                            SPF is against the ENVELOPE, not the HEADER.

                            --
                            Sahil Tandon <sahil@...>
                          • Wietse Venema
                            ... SPF uses the address in MAIL FROM command. This is sent before the RCPT TO command and before the message header/body. Wietse
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa:
                              > Hi!
                              >
                              > This is getting interesting..... How, exactly, does mailman (or other
                              > mailing list manager) handles this? I mean, I have seen several
                              > SPF-enabled domains, and these domains have subscriptions to one or
                              > more lists... now, reading the headers for one of the messages of this
                              > lists, I got this:
                              >
                              > Sender: owner-postfix-users@...
                              >
                              > So... my guess is that the SPF check will go against this mail
                              > address, not the one on the From field..... am I right?
                              >
                              > What do you think?

                              SPF uses the address in MAIL FROM command. This is sent before
                              the RCPT TO command and before the message header/body.

                              Wietse
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.