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

attachments on bounce messages generated by postfix

Expand Messages
  • Ben WIlliams
    Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to bounce messages. The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the
    Message 1 of 11 , May 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to bounce messages.

      The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the message headers of the failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message Headers

      Now it attaches the entire failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message

      I would like to revert to the previous behaviour where only the headers are attached to the bounce.

      Thanks
      Ben Williams
    • Viktor Dukhovni
      ... This depends on the message size and the bounce size limit. http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit If you set bounce_size_limit = 1
      Message 2 of 11 , May 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:31:43AM +1200, Ben WIlliams wrote:

        > Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to
        > bounce messages.
        >
        > The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the message
        > headers of the failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message
        > Headers
        >
        > Now it attaches the entire failed email with Content-Description:
        > Undelivered Message
        >
        > I would like to revert to the previous behaviour where only the headers are
        > attached to the bounce.

        This depends on the message size and the bounce size limit.

        http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit

        If you set

        bounce_size_limit = 1

        bounces will only include headers (no rfc822 message fits in a
        single byte). Postfix does not permit setting the limit to zero or less.

        --
        Viktor.
      • Ben WIlliams
        Thanks that fixed it. On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
        Message 3 of 11 , May 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks that fixed it.


          On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...> wrote:
          On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:31:43AM +1200, Ben WIlliams wrote:

          > Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to
          > bounce messages.
          >
          > The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the message
          > headers of the failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message
          > Headers
          >
          > Now it attaches the entire failed email with Content-Description:
          > Undelivered Message
          >
          > I would like to revert to the previous behaviour where only the headers are
          > attached to the bounce.

          This depends on the message size and the bounce size limit.

              http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit

          If you set

                  bounce_size_limit = 1

          bounces will only include headers (no rfc822 message fits in a
          single byte). Postfix does not permit setting the limit to zero or less.

          --
                  Viktor.

        • Charles Marcus
          ... Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009... I d suggest updating... -- Best regards, Charles
          Message 4 of 11 , May 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams <benwilliams@...> wrote:
            > The version is postfix 2.3.3.

            Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...

            I'd suggest updating...

            --

            Best regards,

            Charles
          • Reindl Harald
            ... stoneold yes, but unsupported not really [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix postfix-2.3.3-6.el5 rpm -q --changelog postfix * Tue Jul 03 2012
            Message 5 of 11 , May 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
              > On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams <benwilliams@...> wrote:
              >> The version is postfix 2.3.3.
              >
              > Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...

              stoneold yes, but unsupported not really

              [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
              postfix-2.3.3-6.el5

              rpm -q --changelog postfix
              * Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6
              - Fixed FD leak in biff
              Resolves: rhbz#766499
              - Removed exec mode from documentation files

              * Wed Jun 27 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-5
              - Packaged example scripts
              Resolves: rhbz#251677
              - Fixed recipient duplicate elimination
              Resolves: rhbz#474541
              - Compiled with mysql support
              Resolves: rhbz#502412
              - Clarified documentation about reject_invalid_helo_hostname
              Resolves: rhbz#514948
              - Fixed milter communication if single header is larger than 64k
              Resolves: rhbz#617069
              - Improved init script to check for PID
              Resolves: rhbz#645348
              - Fixed mailq, newaliases, sendmail, aliases man pages display
              Resolves: rhbz#664627
            • Charles Marcus
              ... Unsupported according to the postfix site... ... So he should have asked on the redhat list... -- Best regards, Charles
              Message 6 of 11 , May 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                > Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                >> >On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
                >>> >>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
                >> >Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
                > stoneold yes, but unsupported not really

                Unsupported according to the postfix site...

                > [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
                > postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
                >
                > rpm -q --changelog postfix
                > * Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6

                So he should have asked on the redhat list...

                --

                Best regards,

                Charles
              • Reindl Harald
                ... says who? ... you genius realized that the question was answered before your post? so why you needed to post 12 hours after the solution? ... Betreff: Re:
                Message 7 of 11 , May 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                  > On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                  >> Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                  >>> >On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
                  >>>> >>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
                  >>> >Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
                  >> stoneold yes, but unsupported not really
                  >
                  > Unsupported according to the postfix site...

                  says who?

                  >> [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
                  >> postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
                  >>
                  >> rpm -q --changelog postfix
                  >> * Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6
                  >
                  > So he should have asked on the redhat list...

                  you genius realized that the question was answered before your post?
                  so why you needed to post 12 hours after the solution?

                  -------- Original-Nachricht --------
                  Betreff: Re: attachments on bounce messages generated by postfix
                  Datum: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:13:45 +1200
                  Von: Ben WIlliams <benwilliams@...>
                  An: postfix-users@...

                  Thanks that fixed it.

                  On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@... <mailto:postfix-users@...>>
                  wrote:

                  On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:31:43AM +1200, Ben WIlliams wrote:

                  > Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to
                  > bounce messages.
                  >
                  > The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the message
                  > headers of the failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message
                  > Headers
                  >
                  > Now it attaches the entire failed email with Content-Description:
                  > Undelivered Message
                  >
                  > I would like to revert to the previous behaviour where only the headers are
                  > attached to the bounce.

                  This depends on the message size and the bounce size limit.

                  http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit

                  If you set

                  bounce_size_limit = 1

                  bounces will only include headers (no rfc822 message fits in a
                  single byte). Postfix does not permit setting the limit to zero or less.
                • Viktor Dukhovni
                  ... Let s not engage in sophistry. More to the point even if Redhat continue to fix some bugs in Postfix 2.3, other issues are resolved in later releases
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 2, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:16:28PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:

                    > On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                    > >Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                    > >>>On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
                    > >>>>>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
                    > >>>Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
                    > >stoneold yes, but unsupported not really
                    >
                    > Unsupported according to the postfix site...
                    >
                    > >[root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
                    > >postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
                    > >
                    > >rpm -q --changelog postfix
                    > >* Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav ?karvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6
                    >
                    > So he should have asked on the redhat list...

                    Let's not engage in sophistry. More to the point even if Redhat
                    continue to fix some bugs in Postfix 2.3, other issues are resolved
                    in later releases through structural improvements that are difficult
                    to backport. MTA administrators should deploy Postfix releases
                    that are still supported upstream (http://www.postfix.org/download.html).

                    --
                    Viktor.
                  • Charles Marcus
                    ... Wietse? ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html Scroll down, genius. The no longer supported stable releases start with 2.6.
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 2, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                      > Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                      >> Unsupported according to the postfix site..

                      > says who?

                      Wietse?

                      ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html

                      Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start
                      with 2.6.
                    • Reindl Harald
                      ... tht s all true and fine but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with a one-liner to
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 2, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Am 02.05.2013 21:30, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                        > On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                        >> Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                        >>> Unsupported according to the postfix site..
                        >
                        >> says who?
                        >
                        > Wietse?
                        >
                        > ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html
                        > Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start with 2.6

                        tht's all true and fine

                        but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after
                        one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with
                        a one-liner to tell the world what is supported or not?
                      • Viktor Dukhovni
                        ... Guys please take your fight outside, thanks. Offenders will be removed from the list. -- Viktor.
                        Message 11 of 11 , May 2, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

                          > Am 02.05.2013 21:30, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                          > > On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                          > >> Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                          > >>> Unsupported according to the postfix site..
                          > >
                          > >> says who?
                          > >
                          > > Wietse?
                          > >
                          > > ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html
                          > > Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start with 2.6
                          >
                          > tht's all true and fine
                          >
                          > but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after
                          > one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with
                          > a one-liner to tell the world what is supported or not?

                          Guys please take your fight outside, thanks. Offenders will be
                          removed from the list.

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