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

Re: holding local delivery

Expand Messages
  • Wietse Venema
    ... make that: local.unix (the connection type comes last).
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 1, 2010
      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 2 of 16 , Apr 2, 2010
        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 3 of 16 , Apr 2, 2010
          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 4 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
            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 5 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
              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 6 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
                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.