On 08/01/2010 04:11 AM, Mike Morris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
> for MX and SASL submission purposes.  Generally I like to have separate
> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.

Why ?
It's totally useless in this case.
SMTP runs on port 25, and rejects anything not_invented_here.
Submission runs on port 587, and requires SASL.
Simple.

>    In this case I'm running
> in to problems when the submission instance uses the same IP address as
> the MX instance.  (Due to a limited IP address pool there is currently
> only one routable IP address assigned to this server.)
>
> Using the submission instance to send a message to a recipient address
> for which the server is also the MX host triggers Postfix' loop
> detection.  Mail for foreign addresses is relayed correctly.  I realize
> this can be done easily enough without using multiple instances.

Indeed.

>    Is
> there a way to work around this so that an MX instance and submission
> instance can share single IP address?

You're going to have to do a lot better than "I want to do this".
Use a single instance, and save yourself some time.
>    I've gotten used to the queue,
> logging, and configuration separation provided by multiple instances and
> would rather like to use that approach here if I can.
>

Since submission is a separate transport, it does log separately.

> mail_version = 2.8-20100707
>

UNSTABLE.
sheesh.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-postfix-users@... [mailto:owner-postfix-
> users@...] On Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 3:50 AM
> To: postfix-users@...
> Subject: Re: Log file checking
>
> Mark Scholten put forth on 7/31/2010 6:53 PM:
>
> > I want the following information (per day or per hour, it should be
> possible
> > to exclude email addresses or to only get information for certain
> email
> > addresses):
>
> /usr/sbin/pflogsumm.pl --smtpd_stats /var/log/mail.log
> /var/log/mail.log.1
>
> Grand Totals
> ------------
> messages
>
>    3658   received
>    5323   delivered
>       0   forwarded
>     480   deferred  (2631  deferrals)
>       1   bounced
>    1740   rejected (24%)
>       0   reject warnings
>       0   held
>       0   discarded (0%)
>
>   25387k  bytes received
>   49655k  bytes delivered
>     825   senders
>     728   sending hosts/domains
>      19   recipients
>      18   recipient hosts/domains
>
> > - Number of email attempts made by other systems
>
> smtpd
>
>     5304   connections
>     1399   hosts/domains
>       10   avg. connect time (seconds)
>  14:54:24  total connect time
>
>
> > - Number of messages blocked based on the HELO requirements (I have a
> few
> > regexp lines with blocked HELOs (botnets/spammers))
>
> If these are done with something like "check_helo_access
> regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp" then you'd see something like this,
> but with
> "Helo command rejected: ".  I don't do any custom HELO checks, only
> client
> checks, but the output is otherwise the same in pflogsumm.
>
>     Client host rejected: Dynamic - Please relay via ISP (chello.nl)
> (total: 1)
>            1   dhcp-077-248-074-059.chello.nl
>     Client host rejected: Dynamic - Please relay via ISP
> (embarqhsd.net)
> (total: 1)
>            1   embarqhsd.net
>     Client host rejected: Dynamic - Please relay via ISP (eunet.rs)
> (total: 1)
>            1   dynamic-78-30-138-239.adsl.eunet.rs
>
> ** I have separate rejection messages for each expression in my regexp
> table.
>  Pflogsumm counts each one as distinct, and gives a total for each one,
> instead of a total for all "custom HELO checks"  If you want a singular
> total
> for yours, you probably don't want to specify rejection text for each,
> but use
> the Postfix default.  Doing so should give you the total you want.
>
> > - Number of connections greylisted (we use postgrey)
>
>     Recipient address rejected: Greylisted (total: 30)
>           30   stan@...
>
> ** greylisting here is used as a last ditch bot blocker.  Some call
> this "very
> selective greylisting".
>
> > - Number of attempts for an invalid recipient
>
>     Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
> (total: 24)
>           21   4050505@...
>            1   4C4F0705.2050005@...
>            1   4c4f17db.7010101@...
>            1   4c20361c.7090309@...
>
> > - Number of messages blocked based on blacklists
>
> message reject detail
> ---------------------
>   RCPT
>     Client host rejected: Access denied (total: 262)
>           22   annaeyes.com
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Email not accepted from Africa (total: 34)
>            3   41.140.254.160
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Belarus (total: 4)
>            3   93.85.201.97
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from China (total: 23)
>            6   60.190.77.242
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Hungary (total: 1)
>            1   www.imac.hu
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Indonesia (total: 14)
>            6   118.96.252.201
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Korea (total: 32)
>            3   61.105.220.135
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Malaysia (total: 1)
>            1   110.74.129.155
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Romania (total: 10)
>            3   81.181.221.62
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Russia (total: 34)
>            3   77.34.255.9
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Thailand (total: 6)
>            3   113.53.213.186
>  ...
>     Client host rejected: Mail not accepted from Ukraine (total: 11)
>            3   79.135.202.145
>
> > - Number of messages blocked by content filter (not really important)
>
> Here neither.  I don't use content filters.  If you saw my entire A/S
> Postfix
> config and my user base you'd understand why.
>
> > - Number of messages accepted (not blocked at any stage)
>
> This is a gripe of my own.  Once you get an accurate method for
> counting this
> via the mail log, please share it with the pflogsumm dev.  My guess is
> that
> it's not at all straightforward, due to the multiple delivery methods
> available.
>
> > I did check pflogsumm, however most information isn't provided by
> pflogsumm
> > (same for awstats). At least not with the package debian provides.
>
> All of the above snippets are from Version: 1.1.0-3 (Lenny)
>
> It appears pflogsumm meets all of your requirements but one.  Maybe not
> in the
> exact mode of operation you'd like, but this is open source code.
> Change it
> as you see fit to meet your needs.  Just share your patches. :)

Getting it in a single number is important for me, however looking at the
http://logreporters.sourceforge.net/ link you did give I see that all but
one thing is given the way I want it. This last option isn't given the way I
like it, but that can be done by parsing the output from postfix-logwatch to
combine the last information. Thank you for giving the link.

Regards, Mark
>
> --
> Stan

Mike Morris:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
> for MX and SASL submission purposes.  Generally I like to have separate
> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.  In this case I'm running
> in to problems when the submission instance uses the same IP address as
> the MX instance.  (Due to a limited IP address pool there is currently
> only one routable IP address assigned to this server.)
>
> Using the submission instance to send a message to a recipient address
> for which the server is also the MX host triggers Postfix' loop
> detection.  Mail for foreign addresses is relayed correctly.  I realize
> this can be done easily enough without using multiple instances.  Is
> there a way to work around this so that an MX instance and submission
> instance can share single IP address?  I've gotten used to the queue,

If you use different MTAs, then use different myhostname AND
different inet_interfaces settings.  Otherwise it is just too easy
to screw up and have a high-speed mail system meltdown/explosion/etc.

Postfix is not just about "secure" for some vague definition of
secure, it is about making a safe to use, so that it does not rip
off your arms and legs when you make a trivial mistake.

	 Wietse

Hi folks,

In pseudo code here's how I want my outside mail exchange system to
behave:

	 if  mail_sent_by_outside_host_to_inside_user
	 then
		 relay_to_inside_user
	 elsif
	     mail_sent_by_inside_host_to_inside_user
	 then
		 relay_to_inside_user
	 elsif
	     mail_sent_by_inside_host_to_outside_destination
	 then
		 relay_to_outside_destination
	 elsif mail_being_sent_by_roaming_laptop    <-- need this!!!
		 relay_where_it_needs_to_go
	 else
		 reject

The part that seems broken (and that is probably a good thing) right now
is the roaming laptop part.  Since I travel a lot with my laptop both
for business and personal purposes and would like my laptop to relay
mail through my server when "outside the cloud" so to speak, what is the
best approach to this without breaking the MX functionality for my
domain?

I've read "The Book" on this subject about SASL authentication and my
fear is if I implement that I'll not be able to receive un-authenticated
hosts (such as the fine server that serves this list) and that would be
a bad thing.

Can somebody point me in the right direction and hopefully not screw
this up?



--
Peter L. Berghold, Australian Cattle Dog Owner, Agility Fan, Foodie,
Salty Old Dog and Old School Unix Hacker.
Skype:  cowdawg
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it"

On Sunday, August 01, 2010 at 19:15 CEST,
      "Peter L. Berghold" <peter@...> wrote:

> In pseudo code here's how I want my outside mail exchange system to
> behave:
>
>  if  mail_sent_by_outside_host_to_inside_user
>  then
> 	 relay_to_inside_user
>  elsif
> 	    mail_sent_by_inside_host_to_inside_user
>  then
> 	 relay_to_inside_user
>  elsif
> 	    mail_sent_by_inside_host_to_outside_destination
>  then
> 	 relay_to_outside_destination
>  elsif mail_being_sent_by_roaming_laptop    <-- need this!!!
> 	 relay_where_it_needs_to_go
>  else
> 	 reject

This is a standard setup. Except for the roaming laptop part, it's the
default configuration. Adding authentication for laptops we get this:

smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
         permit_mynetworks,
         permit_sasl_authenticated,
         reject_unauth_destination

This means:

    * Permit local clients to send email anywhere.
    * Permit authenticated clients to send email anywhere.
    * Permit other clients to send email to hosted domains.

> The part that seems broken (and that is probably a good thing) right
> now is the roaming laptop part.  Since I travel a lot with my laptop
> both for business and personal purposes and would like my laptop to
> relay mail through my server when "outside the cloud" so to speak,
> what is the best approach to this without breaking the MX
> functionality for my domain?
>
> I've read "The Book" on this subject about SASL authentication and my
> fear is if I implement that I'll not be able to receive
> un-authenticated hosts (such as the fine server that serves this list)
> and that would be a bad thing.

No. While you can configure Postfix to always require SASL
authentication, with the configuration above authentication
is only required for relay access which is exactly what you want.

http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_sasl

--
Magnus Bäck
magnus@...

Peter L. Berghold:
> Hi folks,
>
> In pseudo code here's how I want my outside mail exchange system to
> behave:
>

On the Postfix server:

/etc/postfix/main.cf:
     smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
	 permit_mynetworks
	 permit_sasl_authenticated <- for the roaming laptop
	 ...
	 reject_unauth_destination
	 ...

Then configure the Postfix server for SASL (to authenticate the
roaming laptop) and perhaps TLS encryption (to protect the login
sequence).

http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_sasl
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#server_tls

	 Wietse

On 01/08/10 18:56, Wietse Venema wrote:
> and perhaps TLS encryption (to protect the login
>
Do not underestimate the importance of enabling TLS :)

Mark Scholten put forth on 8/1/2010 5:46 AM:

> Getting it in a single number is important for me, however looking at the
> http://logreporters.sourceforge.net/ link you did give I see that all but
> one thing is given the way I want it. This last option isn't given the way I
> like it, but that can be done by parsing the output from postfix-logwatch to
> combine the last information. Thank you for giving the link.

Actually Sahil deserves that credit--I didn't know of logwatch until he
mentioned it.  And just like you, I prefer the logwatch output over pflogsumm.
  I've already converted everything over to it here.

Thanks again Sahil.

--
Stan

On 08/01/2010 02:37 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 08/01/2010 04:11 AM, Mike Morris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
>> for MX and SASL submission purposes.  Generally I like to have separate
>> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.
>
> Why ?
> It's totally useless in this case.
> SMTP runs on port 25, and rejects anything not_invented_here.
> Submission runs on port 587, and requires SASL.
> Simple.

I don't believe it is "totally useless" to use separate instances for
distinct services.  Configurations can get complex.  Outgoing mail may
be handled differently than incoming mail.  Using multiple instances can
simplify the task.  While it may not *work* in this case, using multiple
instances for MX and submission services is far from *useless*.

>
>> mail_version = 2.8-20100707
>>
>
> UNSTABLE.
> sheesh.
>

Plenty of people would argue that Postfix experimental releases are
quite stable.  In this case I would like to test and make use of postscreen.

On 08/01/2010 09:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mike Morris:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
>> for MX and SASL submission purposes.  Generally I like to have separate
>> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.  In this case I'm running
>> in to problems when the submission instance uses the same IP address as
>> the MX instance.  (Due to a limited IP address pool there is currently
>> only one routable IP address assigned to this server.)
>>
>> Using the submission instance to send a message to a recipient address
>> for which the server is also the MX host triggers Postfix' loop
>> detection.  Mail for foreign addresses is relayed correctly.  I realize
>> this can be done easily enough without using multiple instances.  Is
>> there a way to work around this so that an MX instance and submission
>> instance can share single IP address?  I've gotten used to the queue,
>
> If you use different MTAs, then use different myhostname AND
> different inet_interfaces settings.  Otherwise it is just too easy
> to screw up and have a high-speed mail system meltdown/explosion/etc.
>
> Postfix is not just about "secure" for some vague definition of
> secure, it is about making a safe to use, so that it does not rip
> off your arms and legs when you make a trivial mistake.
>
>  Wietse


Fair enough.  I'll see what can be done about a second IP address.

-Mike

This warning does not make any sense at all since there is no such thing listed
in mydestination. Any ideas?

postfix/trivial-rewrite[7525]: warning: do not list domain mx.asda.gr in BOTH
mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains

# postconf | grep mydest
mydestination = localhost.asda.gr, localhost

Mike Morris:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 08/01/2010 09:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Mike Morris:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
> >> for MX and SASL submission purposes.  Generally I like to have separate
> >> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.  In this case I'm running
> >> in to problems when the submission instance uses the same IP address as
> >> the MX instance.  (Due to a limited IP address pool there is currently
> >> only one routable IP address assigned to this server.)
> >>
> >> Using the submission instance to send a message to a recipient address
> >> for which the server is also the MX host triggers Postfix' loop
> >> detection.  Mail for foreign addresses is relayed correctly.  I realize
> >> this can be done easily enough without using multiple instances.  Is
> >> there a way to work around this so that an MX instance and submission
> >> instance can share single IP address?  I've gotten used to the queue,
> >
> > If you use different MTAs, then use different myhostname AND
> > different inet_interfaces settings.  Otherwise it is just too easy
> > to screw up and have a high-speed mail system meltdown/explosion/etc.
> >
> > Postfix is not just about "secure" for some vague definition of
> > secure, it is about making a safe to use, so that it does not rip
> > off your arms and legs when you make a trivial mistake.
> >
> >  Wietse
>
>
> Fair enough.  I'll see what can be done about a second IP address.

Or enable the commented-out submission service (port 587) in the
default master.cf file. With this, use port 587 for submission,
and port 25 for final delivery.

	 Wietse

On Aug 2, 2010, at 3:59 am, Phill Macey wrote:

> On 2 August 2010 10:10, Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@...> wrote:
>> This warning does not make any sense at all since there is no such thing
listed in mydestination. Any ideas?
>>
>> postfix/trivial-rewrite[7525]: warning: do not list domain mx.asda.gr in BOTH
mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains
>>
>> # postconf | grep mydest
>> mydestination = localhost.asda.gr, localhost
>>
>
> What about 'postconf | grep virtual_mailbox_domains'. I will not be
> able to answer your question but it might be useful for other people
> to know.

# postconf | grep virtual_mailbox_domains
virtual_mailbox_domains =
proxy:mysql:$config_directory/maps/virtual_mailbox_domains.mysql

# postmap -q "mx.asda.gr" mysql:/etc/postfix/maps/virtual_mailbox_domains.mysql
mx.asda.gr

It is listed as should. The weird thing is that the warning shows up rarely in
the logs, maybe something like once a day.

(Looks like my previous letters has been failed to deliver. so I resend
it)

Due version of sqlite in CentOS5 last snapshots 20100618 and alter does
not compile
with next error:

dict_sqlite.c:71:2: error: #error "Your SQLite version is too old"
dict_sqlite.c: In function 'dict_sqlite_lookup':
dict_sqlite.c:203: warning: implicit declaration of function
'sqlite3_prepare_v2'
make: *** [dict_sqlite.o] Error 1
make: *** [update] Error 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38770 (%build)


RPM build errors:
     Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38770 (%build)


I use postfix with sqlite patch about 2 years with small fix to function
name. I
suggest to make something like this for postfix 2.8. Or maybe check sqlite
version at compile time and use ifdef's.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [Fwd: postfix sqlite patch.]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:09:22 +0100
From: Axel Steiner <ast@...>
To: xxx

Hi,


     Yeah, looks like where is no such function in CentOS 5.1 version of
sqlite. strings /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so | grep prepare sqlite3_prepare
sqlite3_prepare16 # grep prepare /usr/include/sqlite3.h | grep int int
sqlite3_prepare( int sqlite3_prepare16( ... I'm very far away C/Cxx
programming. Can you, please, say, can function be safely replaced with
sqlite3_prepare or sqlite3_prepare16 ? From the whishes to your very good
idea of patch - include some documentaion with requirements (INSTALL,
README).


yes. It should work, use sqlite3_prepare(). The function arguments
are the same.
This patch has no SQLite version check, because I don't wanted to
support deprecated
functions. This is the only function which is not present in SQLite
versions
prior 3.3.9.

Manpages and documentation are on my todo list :-)
That's the only stuff which is missing.

      Axel

>> imap2:~ root# telnet localhost 25
>> Trying ::1...
>> telnet: connect to address ::1: Connection refused
>> Trying 127.0.0.1...
>> Connected to localhost.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> 220 imap2.beth.k12.pa.us ESMTP Postfix
>> EHLO imap2.beth.k12.pa.us
>> 250-imap2.beth.k12.pa.us
>> 250-PIPELINING
>> 250-SIZE 20971520
>> 250-VRFY
>> 250-ETRN
>> 250-STARTTLS
>> 250 8BITMIME

>Okay, no AUTH line in the EHLO response so authentication is not
>supported.

Perphaps you can try the postfix version in
darwinports:

http://postfix.darwinports.com/

It has support for postfix (2.6.x) with the following
variants:

add pcre support
add tls support via openssl
add sasl support via cyrus-sasl2
add ldap support via openldap
add mysql support via mysql5
add postgresql support via postgresql83
add Dovecot SASL support

Regards

Hi,

I can't find info (or I don't know the right query), but I would like
to know some order of operations.
Fore example, when mail arrives, postfix will do:

1. Take a look at local alias maps (if there is a match it will ...)
2. Take a look at virtual_alias_maps (if there is a match it will ...)
3. .....

and so on.

Is there any doc of this kind? :)

On 8/2/2010 5:18 AM, subscriber@... wrote:
> I use postfix with sqlite patch about 2 years with small fix to function
> name. I
> suggest to make something like this for postfix 2.8. Or maybe check sqlite
> version at compile time and use ifdef's.

You might like this from the archives...
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-06/0539.html

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:02:41 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
<grknight@...> wrote:
> On 8/2/2010 5:18 AM, subscriber@... wrote:
>> I use postfix with sqlite patch about 2 years with small fix to
function
>> name. I
>> suggest to make something like this for postfix 2.8. Or maybe check
>> sqlite
>> version at compile time and use ifdef's.
>
> You might like this from the archives...
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-06/0539.html

Thank you. Do you think I should re-post it in that thread? I didn't find
there any relevant posts to this problem.

On 8/1/2010 10:49 PM, Edward avanti wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Edward avanti
> <edward.avanti@... <mailto:edward.avanti@...>> wrote:
>
>     <SNIP>
>
>
>
>     In  4.x.x above me, the sender are known to us, his
>     hostname presented exist, but no PTR RR (he is get fixed
>     but take time), it is we prefer to 5xx, so he  and others
>     like him not wait 5 days to find mail never went, I was
>     think unknown_client_reject_code = 550  would be this
>     solve, but not? Anyway to have this so?
>
>
> It appear from more investigation this cause is SERVFAIL
> always send 4xx, can postifx override to 5xx with setting for
> SERVFAIL ?

Why in the world would you want to 5xx reject on temporary
errors?  Postfix would be insane to offer such an option.  You
will lose legit mail anytime there is a DNS hiccup.

If you don't care about losing legit mail, you can use a
check_client_access table and reject clients named "unknown",
or use an external policy service.
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html


    -- Noel Jones

Hi there,

I implemented my own mail processor (Java program processing mails), and
defined my transport for that.

The problem is if my Java program throws an exception, the mail is
rejected and back to the sender. What I want is for it to go to the
deferred queue.

How can I do that? Either direct the mail to the deferred queue in Java
program or instruct Postfix to do that, so that it can be retried later?

Thanks,
Yan











Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only
for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained
in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (513) 229-5500 or by
email (postmaster@...). After replying, please erase it from your
computer system.

On 8/2/2010 5:29 AM, Pavel Dimow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't find info (or I don't know the right query), but I would like
> to know some order of operations.
> Fore example, when mail arrives, postfix will do:
>
> 1. Take a look at local alias maps (if there is a match it will ...)
> 2. Take a look at virtual_alias_maps (if there is a match it will ...)
> 3. .....
>
> and so on.
>
> Is there any doc of this kind? :)


http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html

Solved my problem by having my transport returning appropriate error
code.











Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only
for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained
in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (513) 229-5500 or by
email (postmaster@...). After replying, please erase it from your
computer system.

On 8/2/2010 10:04 AM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I implemented my own mail processor (Java program processing mails), and
> defined my transport for that.
>
> The problem is if my Java program throws an exception, the mail is
> rejected and back to the sender. What I want is for it to go to the
> deferred queue.
>
> How can I do that? Either direct the mail to the deferred queue in Java
> program or instruct Postfix to do that, so that it can be retried later?
>
> Thanks,
> Yan

Either arrange for your java program to exit with a temporary
error or you can add "-o soft_bounce=yes" to that transport
entry in master.cf.

    -- Noel Jones

subscriber@...:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:02:41 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
> <grknight@...> wrote:
> > On 8/2/2010 5:18 AM, subscriber@... wrote:
> >> I use postfix with sqlite patch about 2 years with small fix to
> function
> >> name. I
> >> suggest to make something like this for postfix 2.8. Or maybe check
> >> sqlite
> >> version at compile time and use ifdef's.
> >
> > You might like this from the archives...
> > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-06/0539.html
>
> Thank you. Do you think I should re-post it in that thread? I didn't find
> there any relevant posts to this problem.

Especially if you can also post concrete code for solving this.
Otherwise, the Postfix xqlite driver is unlikely to change.

	 Wietse

Hi!

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Jorge Andrea G Carminati
<jcarminati@...> wrote:
> hi all! I've a postfix server with a network table of around 100 IP
> addresses (net/host), is there a way to explicitly permit the relaying to
> the Internet from some of these IPs and others not?
> thanks in advance.

Yes, there is, but I would suggest that you use user authentication,
as it would be more secure.

As for exactly how to do it, take a good read at the docs (no time for
a complete answer right now).  Maybe someone else will give it, maybe
myself when I get a little more of free time.

Ildefonso.

>
>
>
>   ________________________________
> "Cuidar la naturaleza es vivir mejor... hagámoslo juntos. Imprime sólo lo
> necesario."
>
> "La información transmitida en este mensaje está destinada únicamente a la
> persona o entidad a la cual el mismo está dirigido, y puede contener
> material confidencial, reservado o sujeto al secreto profesional. Cualquier
> revisión, retransmisión, divulgación u otro uso de la misma, o la
> realización de cualquier acción basada en ella por personas o entidades
> distintas de la indicada, no está permitida. Si usted ha recibido este
> mensaje por error, tenga la amabilidad de destruirlo, sin copiarlo ni
> divulgar su contenido. Muchas gracias."
>
>
> The information contained in this message is directed exclusively to the
> person or entity to whom the message is addressed, and it might contain
> information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise legally exempt
> from disclosure. Any action based on it, performed by an individual or
> entity different from the one it was intended, is not allowed and its
> contents should not be read, forwarded, disclosed, or used in any other way.
> If you have received it by mistake please delete it from your system, you
> should also not copy the message nor disclose its contents to anyone. Thank
> you.
>

Hi,

I'm trying to set Mailman 2.1.9 to handle multiple domains. 9?

I have apply the patch from http://nxsy.org/139.html and this way I have
a list called mydomain.com-list. The issue is that if I'm posting to
mydomain.com-list@... everything seems to work fine. However,
when posting to list@... the mail is set to quarantine.

I have tried to rewrite the address on postfix (using alias) to match
mydomain.com-list, but it still doesn't work. I have also tried with
canonical and smtp_generic_maps setting them as:
list@...  mydomain.com-list@...

However mailman is still complaining with "Message has implicit
destination" and the mail arrives at mailman with the list@....
I want to make any mail with this address arriving at mailman as
mydomain.com-list@...?

Any idea how can I make it working?

I'm using postfix with virtual domains, mysql and mailman with
postfix-to-mailman.py

Any help is more than appreciated!!
TA
Jorge

P.S.: If you require further info, just tell me. I'm really desperate.

ok, I will jump from skyscraper later

Thank you. :)


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Noel Jones <njones@...> wrote:
> On 8/2/2010 5:29 AM, Pavel Dimow wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can't find info (or I don't know the right query), but I would like
>> to know some order of operations.
>> Fore example, when mail arrives, postfix will do:
>>
>> 1. Take a look at local alias maps (if there is a match it will ...)
>> 2. Take a look at virtual_alias_maps (if there is a match it will ...)
>> 3. .....
>>
>> and so on.
>>
>> Is there any doc of this kind? :)
>
>
> http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html
>
>
>