September 19, 2010 
< | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | >
September 19, 2010 [00:03:01] *** uqlev has joined #postfix[00:38:16] *** uqlev has quit IRC[00:39:08] *** higuita has quit IRC[00:41:50] *** higuita has joined #postfix[01:20:22] *** smica has quit IRC[01:27:15] *** higuita has quit IRC[01:31:07] *** higuita has joined #postfix[01:36:15] *** Ionic has quit IRC[02:02:31] *** Guest51532 has joined #postfix[02:04:55] *** TomHome has joined #postfix[02:25:19] *** Matic`Makovec has quit IRC[02:58:03] <intelinsider> n[02:58:14] *** maix has left #postfix[03:02:01] *** Guest51532 is now known as Ionic[03:03:21] *** rcsheets has quit IRC[03:06:50] *** Cubber has joined #postfix[03:07:20] *** JonnyV has quit IRC[03:07:39] <Cubber> if I am hosting multiple domains from my postfix server what do I need to set myhostname to in order for EHLO to report the correct domain? Right now it just pushes the actual hostname of ther server at localdomain.[03:10:46] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix[03:11:37] *** ekkis has joined #postfix[03:12:57] <ekkis> I have a curious problem... I've moved to AT&T from Time Warner and now have to authenticate. I've worked through the issues in that but now I can't send mail because the AT&T server rejects e-mails whose From: headers are non att.net[03:13:12] <ekkis> does anyone know how to deal with this issue?[03:15:34] *** GoGi has joined #postfix[03:21:42] <jeremymcs> !sasl[03:21:43] <knoba> jeremymcs: "sasl" : SASL is 'Simple Authentication and Security Layer', necessary for SMTP AUTH, and provided to Postfix by addin software. Cyrus SASL and/or Dovecot IMAP/POP3 can provide SASL. See http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html for details.[03:22:43] <jeremymcs> ekkis, so you can auth and send, but not to anyone other than an att.net ?[03:30:47] <ekkis> jeremymcs: no... it seems to look at the From: address and if it's not @att.net it won't send the message[03:31:23] <ekkis> I get the message: 553 From[03:31:23] <ekkis> address not verified[03:31:35] <ekkis> and gives me a link that leads nowhere[03:32:06] <jeremymcs> using port 587 ?[03:33:01] <ekkis> yes[03:33:23] <ekkis> I switched from 465 after the thing kept timing out and I found a thread about it[03:33:45] <jeremymcs> yeah, 465 is for clients i believe[03:33:55] <ekkis> I get past the authentication but can't deliver my mail[03:34:14] *** wdp_ has joined #postfix[03:34:38] <ekkis> spent 1hr+ on the phone with AT&T and in the end I may have to cancel my account if I can't figure it out. they sure can't[03:34:48] <ekkis> completely useless tech support[03:34:59] <jeremymcs> yeah, probably over their heads[03:35:26] <ekkis> they've got their server configured this way and I can't use it[03:35:51] <ekkis> I was trying to move away from Time Warner because their service is terrible. goes down all the time[03:36:11] <ekkis> with TW I didn't have to authenticate for sending mail so it all worked[03:37:03] *** wdp has quit IRC[03:37:17] <ekkis> jeremymcs: I'm guessing there's probably nothing I can do about their server configuration... but that would mean that anyone running an MTA probably doesn't use AT&T which seems implausible[03:37:40] <jeremymcs> can you deliver directly ?[03:38:01] <ekkis> their network won't let me. they close port 25[03:38:07] *** wdp_aao has quit IRC[03:38:08] <ekkis> so I have to launder my mail through them[03:38:09] <jeremymcs> biz account ?[03:38:15] <ekkis> no, home account[03:38:20] <jeremymcs> their yah go[03:38:40] <ekkis> yeah. grr.[03:39:01] <ekkis> sadly I have no other options. ATT and TW are it and they both suck[03:39:18] <jeremymcs> can always packup and move[03:39:23] <ekkis> heh[03:39:23] <ekkis> right[03:39:35] <ekkis> pack up my koi pond, garden, etc.[03:39:37] <jeremymcs> your on rr right now ?[03:39:54] <ekkis> yip[03:40:04] <ekkis> switched back[03:40:10] <ekkis> I still have both networks running[03:40:17] <jeremymcs> ah, rr = tw[03:40:26] <ekkis> I've long thought about finding someone to colocate with[03:40:30] <ekkis> yip[03:40:41] <ekkis> att uses yahoo and tw uses rr[03:40:45] <jeremymcs> how many domains/emails you sending out ?[03:41:07] <ekkis> 4 domains, probably 10 addresses[03:41:32] <ekkis> why?[03:41:35] <jeremymcs> j/w[03:41:41] <jeremymcs> u could get a vps and relay through it[03:41:48] <jeremymcs> 10-20$ mo @ slichost[03:41:52] <jeremymcs> slicehost*[03:42:03] <ekkis> vps?[03:42:08] * ekkis googles[03:42:21] <jeremymcs> virtual private server[03:42:27] <ekkis> ah[03:42:37] <jeremymcs> http://www.slicehost.com/[03:42:55] <ekkis> interesting... cheap too[03:43:10] <ekkis> at least it'd be reliable[03:43:31] <jeremymcs> but with them blocking port 25 .. ha[03:43:32] <ekkis> but I'm guessing I can't just take my box and colocate... I'd have to migrate all my stuff[03:43:34] <ekkis> sigh[03:43:41] <jeremymcs> correct[03:43:53] <jeremymcs> what distro ?[03:44:07] <ekkis> fedora 11[03:44:15] <ekkis> maybe 12, I can't remember now[03:44:16] <jeremymcs> ew[03:44:47] <ekkis> I ran RH for years and when they split I stayed with Fedora[03:44:58] *** GoGi has quit IRC[03:45:26] <ekkis> a buddy has been trying to convince me about CentOS for years but I can't take the time to figure it all out so I stick with what I know[03:46:21] <jeremymcs> its the same[03:46:23] <jeremymcs> rpm based[03:46:39] <ekkis> yip[03:46:49] <ekkis> what do you prefer?[03:50:18] *** wdp_aao has joined #postfix[03:53:36] *** wdp_aao has quit IRC[03:53:42] <jeremymcs> debian/ubuntu for servers[03:53:51] <jeremymcs> easier maintenance[03:54:03] <jeremymcs> i still have several gentoo servers in production[03:54:04] <ekkis> I've been curious about ubuntu for a while[03:55:17] <jeremymcs> really simple, and alot of community support[03:55:57] <jeremymcs> centos + fedora .. sometimes (alot) .. backport software just w/ security updates .. leaving you several versions behind[03:56:11] *** Cubber has quit IRC[03:56:41] <ekkis> I have very little time any more to touch linux. doing lots of windoze stuff[03:58:01] *** AstralStorm has quit IRC[03:58:17] *** GoGi has joined #postfix[03:58:25] *** AstralStorm has joined #postfix[04:12:00] *** rcsheets has joined #postfix[04:29:36] *** GoGi has quit IRC[04:51:55] *** rcsheets has left #postfix[05:03:15] *** grobe0ba is now known as grobe0ba|away[05:04:42] *** Alagar has joined #postfix[05:24:39] *** jan_ has joined #postfix[05:27:51] *** jfried has quit IRC[05:47:43] *** MAAAAD has quit IRC[06:00:21] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix[06:21:08] *** ib-mobile has quit IRC[06:21:28] *** ib-mobile has joined #postfix[06:22:14] *** Motoko-chan has joined #postfix[06:24:40] *** Black_Knight has joined #postfix[06:25:22] <Black_Knight> Hi, I have a question. I have a mailserver with a few virtual domains. And one of the domain is sending frequent spam emails. say xxyyxx at domain dot com with random address on the domain.[06:25:42] <Black_Knight> I have applied anvil and timeout settings and recipient count to stop such bulk emails.[06:26:03] <Black_Knight> I also understand that I can implement sender verification list for the domains. But my question is can I have it done for only certain domains.[06:26:41] <Black_Knight> Its a mail server used by many of my clients and they also use it to send emails keeping sender domains other than what I host. I only want to put restriction to those ina certain domain. Is it possible ?[06:29:55] <will_> In that situation, I find the best antispam/antivirus is to talk to the client...[06:32:12] <Black_Knight> will_: Yes I tried that a number of times :) ppl here aren't that easy with it. And don't have their systems updated.[06:33:21] *** MAAAAD has quit IRC[06:33:52] *** navaki has joined #postfix[06:33:58] <Black_Knight> that means sender address verification cannot be implemented on a per domain basis.[06:34:18] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix[06:35:13] <jeremymcs> Black_Knight, looks like you should clean up those windows machines[06:36:08] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: :D yup. But I was trying to find a way that would not make me reach to those horsecrap windows boxes.[06:36:46] <jeremymcs> Black_Knight, how many email accounts for that domain ?[06:37:31] <jeremymcs> pastebin your postconf -n[06:37:36] <Black_Knight> 1300 approx[06:38:11] <jeremymcs> 1300 accounts for that domain ?[06:38:36] <jeremymcs> thats quite a bit of email accounts .. you mean your maintaining that setup on a postfix box? not relaying to an exchange server or something ?[06:39:12] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: These posfix boxes are MX's they relay to another box with qmail for storage[06:39:28] <jeremymcs> even worse .. qmail .. pff[06:39:49] <jeremymcs> any whoo, lets see your postconf -n ..[06:39:54] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: no not in my case it is all good [internet]---[mx]--[qmail][06:40:21] <Black_Knight> http://pastebin.com/Y9xXUjrv[06:40:23] <Black_Knight> here you jeremymcs[06:40:36] <Black_Knight> that qmail is only for storage....and only accepts smtp connection from this postfix.[06:40:59] <Black_Knight> this postfix acts as a MX for the domains...and also it acts as a smtp server for our users.[06:41:08] <jeremymcs> hmm .. no rbl checks ?[06:41:15] <jeremymcs> must get hella spam my friend[06:42:01] <Black_Knight> i have greylisting enabled![06:42:33] <jeremymcs> true, but by blocking before greylist, ... your greylist wont have to accept and wait[06:42:44] <Black_Knight> and also I check recipient clients...so sort of safe on that end. I don't receive much spams...apparently my clients send a lot of spams :D[06:43:05] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: Yes true! I was thinking of doing it, but fear getting false-positives.[06:43:46] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: which RBLs would you suggests.[06:43:50] <jeremymcs> boils down to the sending domains admin not being smart enough to relay through an isp[06:43:53] <Black_Knight> suggest*[06:44:03] <jeremymcs> http://svn.fluxlabs.net/filedetails.php?repname=postfix&path=%2Fdebian%2Ftrunk%2Fmain.cf[06:44:10] <jeremymcs> my debian main.cf[06:44:23] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: They are relaying through the ISP that is the problem :D[06:44:32] *** navaki has quit IRC[06:44:40] <jeremymcs> no .. the senders from the other side .. regarding rbls[06:44:46] <jeremymcs> from them > to you[06:45:14] <jeremymcs> saying the other side should have better admins, and not directly send from their crappy dsl/cable line .. thats how they get bl'd[06:45:27] <Black_Knight> oh got you.[06:45:58] <jeremymcs> i would say to do some ldap lookups to qmail .. but you have multiple virtuals[06:46:04] <jeremymcs> so you'd have to list them all in the tables[06:46:32] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: for I don't host virtual domains for email storage in this mx...its not a problem...it only relays email...the virtual domains are hosted on the qmail.[06:47:10] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: so implementing the rbls.....would they help denying the users from my own network...for I have permit_mynetworks ![06:47:30] <jeremymcs> nah .. was just saying[06:47:51] <Black_Knight> yes guessed the same.[06:48:54] <Black_Knight> anvil and recipient count is helping me to some extent[06:49:14] <Black_Knight> but still the queue gets full and holds all the other important emails and thats a bigger pain for me.[06:49:24] <jeremymcs> yeah[06:50:29] <Black_Knight> so cocluding : I am out of luck! And I need to build a Antivirus Task Force (ATF Squad) in my company Lols![06:52:04] <jeremymcs> thats the problem with allowing relay, means you trust the source[06:52:34] <Black_Knight> I would not have any other options..being the service provider.[06:52:39] <Black_Knight> Anyway thanks for all the help.[06:52:47] <jeremymcs> y not implement a content filter .. amavis ?[06:52:55] <Black_Knight> I have amavis.[06:53:05] <Black_Knight> But amavis won't help. I cannot reject a TLD.[06:53:06] <jeremymcs> ah, i see it now[06:53:26] <Black_Knight> i have any contentfilter you can imagine of ;) amavis, headerchecks, postgrey, spam and all[06:53:31] <jeremymcs> are the contents of the emails actual spam ?[06:53:37] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: Yup![06:53:45] <jeremymcs> then you need to clean up the machines[06:53:51] <Black_Knight> You don't have an email from xxbbyy at domain dot com to some one @ google.[06:54:02] <Black_Knight> Yes. I will proceed with the same and build an ATF.[06:54:37] <jeremymcs> w/ out sender verifications or a lookup table .. xxxyyy at domain dot com is just as valid as joe at domain dot com[06:55:12] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: yes true. but the contents are spam. you can see i have recipient matches for the incoming mails.[06:55:24] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: I wanted a similar for sender too.[06:55:37] <Black_Knight> say I can escape a recipient match for all using @domain.com in the list.[06:55:44] <Black_Knight> wondering if I can do the same for senders![06:55:54] <jeremymcs> i dont see y not[06:56:06] <Black_Knight> that way I would use specifc email matches for the domains sending spams and for others I could use a mere @domain.com .[06:56:21] <Black_Knight> so if I keep abc at domain1 dot com, def at domain1 dot com and @domain2.com[06:56:39] <Black_Knight> any sender for domain3 will be allowed and specifc checks would be for domain1 and domain3 ?[06:56:42] <Black_Knight> domain1* sprry[06:58:10] *** navaki has joined #postfix[06:59:01] <Black_Knight> checking with it now.[06:59:02] <jeremymcs> are you using mysql w/ qmail ?[07:00:15] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: no.[07:00:20] <jeremymcs> ouch[07:00:28] <jeremymcs> so you maintain 1300 users .. lol and no database ?[07:00:44] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: for qmail...its vpopmail.[07:01:00] <jeremymcs> can you export your qmail user db to a file ?[07:01:11] <jeremymcs> user sender_checks and do a lookup on that table[07:01:21] <jeremymcs> use*[07:01:34] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: but that would not help...i would have a number of users who would send email keeping some other domains than what I host.[07:01:51] <Black_Knight> its a relay server...I cannot have any one who comes into my network have a email account with me to send emails.[07:02:30] <Black_Knight> that is why I am looking for a per domain check...rather than on a whole system.[07:02:40] <jeremymcs> yeah .. hmm[07:03:41] <jeremymcs> could always enforce authentication[07:04:01] <Black_Knight> but you know users, they don't want to be restricted to send an email...it always has to be an optional feature.[07:04:16] <jeremymcs> then you should re-think your admin position[07:04:44] <jeremymcs> if your not willing to step up and enforce a policy, step down and let someone who is ..[07:05:03] <jeremymcs> and we wonder where spam comes from ..[07:05:21] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: when you are running an ISP in a competitive market...and where users are conservative to be enforced to authentication....its not me not being able to enforce a policy.[07:05:40] <jeremymcs> do you run an isp:[07:05:41] <jeremymcs> ?*[07:05:45] <Black_Knight> The thing always comes down to getting more users and increasing the network.[07:06:25] <Black_Knight> I was searching for a solution here, seeing if anything could be implemented in my part to do the checks so the users would not have to do something in their.[07:06:28] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: Yes.[07:06:48] <jeremymcs> and your allowing all of your customers to relay w/ out auth ?[07:07:35] <Black_Knight> all of my clients can relay emails without authentication here! yes! the authentication feature is optional. And it cannot be left unchanged...because other providers here don't enforce authentication and if I come forward and do, the clients will simply migrate![07:07:38] <jeremymcs> i thought you were picking up email, cleaning and delivering to your clients ..[07:07:52] <jeremymcs> where is here ?[07:08:00] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: Nepal :)[07:08:16] <jeremymcs> its people like you who keep the spam on the internet[07:08:25] <jeremymcs> i understand your trying to combat .. but you cant[07:08:40] <jeremymcs> since your not even verifying whose sending the shit, your sol buddy[07:09:09] <jeremymcs> whats the name of your isp? and its ip ranges? i'd like to add them to my firewall tables[07:09:15] <jeremymcs> .. /afk[07:09:54] *** Black_Knight has quit IRC[07:10:11] *** Black_Knight has joined #postfix[07:11:10] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: you are thinking the other way around here. I know my position and I am doing the best I can to stop the dirt....if you think being on an admin position only talks IT, than you are miscalculating it my friend. it always comes down to provide an easy service...being hard always doesn[07:11:12] <Black_Knight> help.[07:12:01] <jeremymcs> having a client add a user and password is hard ?[07:12:32] <jeremymcs> "I am doing the best I can to stop the dirt" .. not so[07:13:12] <joschi> Black_Knight: if your clients migrate to another ISP just because you enforce smtp-auth, something else is probably severely wrong in your business model. just my 2 cents.[07:13:12] <joschi> Black_Knight: given that you not only provide mail services[07:14:11] <joschi> Black_Knight: give them a friendly notice explaining the need for authentication and 1 month of time to migrate, then enforce smtp-auth[07:15:17] <Black_Knight> joschi: I have tried the same in past and yes a number of times. It will take some more time I guess for them to understand the value of what we are trying to do here.[07:15:51] <jeremymcs> Black_Knight, you probably just lost any help from the channel .. by admitting what your doing. so good luck .. im out[07:16:15] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: Thankyou for your time.[07:16:17] <joschi> Black_Knight: I guess your clients are getting more than enough UBE/UCE themselves. they will understand ;)[07:16:25] <jeremymcs> think about it, you've got thousands of admins trying to combat what your allowing to happen[07:16:35] <jeremymcs> then your asking them for help[07:17:10] <Black_Knight> jeremymcs: I am understanding what is happening thus came here for a solution, and falling back to the old model if nth comes out.[07:18:14] <Black_Knight> joschi: Yes, I am going back to them again. Something needs to be done right away.[07:19:00] <joschi> Black_Knight: if you don't want to enforce SMTP-Auth, at least scan the outgoing mails of your clients with a content filter and reject them hard if it's spam. and don't scan the mails if they're authenticating first[07:19:26] <joschi> Black_Knight: that should be enough motivation to use smtp-auth by themselves.[07:20:19] <Black_Knight> joschi: Thanks. I guess my doing of permit_mynetworks before checking the policy was the error here.[07:22:19] <joschi> Black_Knight: yes. first match wins in restrictions. and if you have permit_mynetworks first, all clients inside the networks listed in $mynetworks will be permitted[07:24:00] <Black_Knight> joschi: how do I enforce the content filter check before the permit_mynetworks in smtpd_recipient_restrictions[07:24:30] <joschi> Black_Knight: e. g. by using a milter like spamass-milter (for spamassassin)[07:24:44] <Black_Knight> joschi: thanks.[07:25:32] <joschi> Black_Knight: also take a look at http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html[07:26:23] <Black_Knight> joschi: I will. Thanks again. And again jeremymcs, I am trying to help. The thing is you have to be bound at times.[07:29:11] <navaki> Hi all,How can i use ripMIME into postfix for extracting all attachments from any email? thanks in advance.[07:29:17] *** Ryushin has quit IRC[07:34:49] *** navaki has quit IRC[07:35:38] *** meeso has joined #postfix[07:36:59] <meeso> I seem to be having some googling issues here.. can someone point me to a doc on how to setup a mailbox that also has a forward (or list) using postfix w/ mysql.[07:41:15] *** dragonheart has joined #postfix[07:41:32] *** uqlev has joined #postfix[07:43:46] *** MAAAAD has quit IRC[07:47:25] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix[07:49:03] *** ekkis has quit IRC[07:50:00] *** forsberg is now known as fOrsberg[07:52:58] *** henriknj has joined #postfix[08:13:37] *** rcsheets has joined #postfix[08:14:39] *** Black_Knight has left #postfix[08:14:50] *** Black_Knight has joined #postfix[08:16:19] *** Black_Knight has left #postfix[08:29:57] *** karlgus has quit IRC[08:30:28] *** karlgus has joined #postfix[08:32:56] *** x_or has joined #postfix[08:34:07] <x_or> I'm confused as to where to troubleshoot mail delivery. I looked up the mx record for my domain and it says hostmaster.subsms.com. I don't have this explicitly setup in my postfix configuration files, do I need to? And, is this the default MX record if I don't do it myself, I don't recall setting this in DNS.[08:35:35] <will_> What is your domain?[08:36:20] <x_or> subsms.com[08:36:46] <rcsheets> subsms.com has no MX record[08:36:52] <will_> Yeah, what he said[08:37:19] <x_or> Should it have one? I was under the impression that if I did not set one it would by default send to the IP established for the A record.[08:37:34] <will_> True...[08:37:42] <rcsheets> it's best to have one[08:37:56] <x_or> Ok, like this article: http://articles.slicehost.com/2008/8/1/postfix-mx-records-and-receiving-emails[08:38:18] <x_or> mail as an A record, and then mail.subsms.com as the MX record?[08:38:22] <rcsheets> also hostmaster.subsms.com is the SOA RNAME[08:38:55] <x_or> I am not sure what SOA RNAME means.[08:39:12] <rcsheets> it's meant to be read as hostmaster at subsms dot com and specifies the email address of the person responsible for the zone[08:39:16] <rcsheets> it has nothing to do with mail delivery[08:39:59] <rcsheets> so yeah, you should have something like "MX 10 mail.subsms.com." and then mail.subsms.com should have an A record.[08:40:00] <x_or> OK, thank you.[08:40:08] <x_or> I just set those two up.[08:40:33] <x_or> Dig now returns "mail.subsms.com. 86400 IN A 209.20.69.244"[08:40:37] <x_or> This looks OK, I think.[08:40:47] <rcsheets> looks fine from here[08:41:16] <x_or> I tested using telnet on port 25 and it seems to accept properly, so I think postfix is OK.[08:41:44] <rcsheets> looks alright from over here as well[08:42:05] <x_or> I just sent something there, and it does not get delivered into the correct mailbox. I am confused where the mail is going. Should I be tailing /var/spool/mail or something?[08:42:28] <x_or> I have the domain added to "virtual_alias_domains"[08:42:41] <x_or> Do I need it in mydestination (in main.cf)?[08:42:51] <rcsheets> what does your mail log say was done with the message?[08:43:00] <x_or> I'm not sure I understand what to do with mydestination.[08:43:22] <x_or> tail -f /var/log/mail.log?[08:43:55] <x_or> Ah, interesting, looks like it is sending to another destination, which forwards to a domain outside (gmail).[08:43:58] <rcsheets> if that's where your syslog puts the mail log[08:44:02] <x_or> Wonder when I broke that.[08:44:19] <x_or> Right? "Sep 18 23:48:41 vivoh postfix/smtp[5090]: 1F8DB2D013B: to=<subsms at vivoh dot net>, orig_to=<sadasd at subsms dot com>, relay=ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.95.27]:25, delay=1.7, delays=0.18/0.01/0.06/1.5, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1284878921 d8si15429554ibb.7)"[08:45:06] <rcsheets> the mail was forwarded to subsms at vivoh dot net, and mail for that domain is handled by google[08:45:17] <rcsheets> it was *not* forwarded to gmail.com[08:45:43] <x_or> OK, got it.[08:45:56] <x_or> So, I must have a rewrite or relay rule somewhere?[08:46:46] <rcsheets> relaying is when your server is an intermediate hop along the mail route to the final destination.[08:46:57] <x_or> I see in /etc/postfix/virtual that there are references to vivoh.net[08:47:08] <x_or> Is this an example of relaying?[08:47:18] <rcsheets> i take it there's a hash:/etc/postfix/virtual somewhere in your main.cf then?[08:47:56] <x_or> Yes.[08:48:10] <x_or> Last line: virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual[08:48:32] <rcsheets> have you read virtual(5)?[08:48:58] <x_or> No, I will read that man page.[08:49:22] <rcsheets> it should help explain what's going on[08:49:30] <rcsheets> of course i have no idea if that's what you *want* or not, but i'd start there[08:50:06] <x_or> Ah, I think I am starting to know what happened. I just changed my hostname file to be vivoh.com rather than just vivoh. Now the server tries to deliver the mail to a user on vivoh.com, which has a rule in virtual to rewrite (relay?) that and it is going to google because that domain has an MX record for delivery to google.[08:50:26] <rcsheets> are you vivoh.com?[08:50:29] <x_or> Yes.[08:50:37] <rcsheets> that's probably good then :)[08:50:51] <x_or> So, a mail to foo at subsms dot com gets translated into foo at vivoh dot com, which has an MX record for delivery to google.[08:50:52] <rcsheets> as opposed to aliasing mail to some random third party, i mean[08:50:57] <x_or> Yes![08:51:35] <rcsheets> well, if that's what's going on, that could be problematic if you don't keep your user lists in sync[08:52:02] <rcsheets> you don't want people to email bar at subsms dot com and have that aliased to bar at vivoh dot com unless bar at vivoh dot com is a real mailbox. otherwise you will be a source of backscatter.[08:52:58] <x_or> I really want bar at subsms dot com to be delivered to one user account on the vivoh.com server, namely the subsms account.[08:53:57] <rcsheets> are you wanting a catch-all?[08:53:58] <x_or> I assumed having this line in virtual " at subsms dot com subsms" was enough to deliver all mail to subsms.com domain to that user account, but it looks like I was wrong.[08:54:06] <x_or> Yes, I want a catch all.[08:54:11] <rcsheets> anything-whatsoever at subsms dot com -> subsms at vivoh dot com ?[08:54:24] <x_or> Yes, exactly.[08:54:32] *** diqpib has joined #postfix[08:55:04] <rcsheets> it's probably best to set the destination address explicitly instead of relying on the mail system to figure out which domain to append to the address[08:55:13] <rcsheets> also, using a catch-all is a great way to get a *lot* of spam.[08:55:29] <x_or> Yeah, good point.[08:55:52] <x_or> I'm planning on having some very obscure email addresses, and dropping everything else, so I think I should be OK.[08:56:27] <x_or> Each email address will be mapped to a single from address, so I am hopeful I will block a lot of spam that way, and none of the mappings will be public.[08:56:56] <x_or> Plus, getting spam makes me feel loved, I love getting lots of email.[08:56:58] <x_or> :)[08:57:33] <x_or> So, should I set this up at the postfix level, or somewhere else?[08:58:02] <x_or> It looks like /etc/postfix/virtual is the right place.[08:58:09] <rcsheets> i'm having trouble understanding what exactly you're trying to accomplish[08:58:15] <Aprogas> Me too.[08:58:57] <x_or> I want anything @ subsms.com to go to the user account subsms on my server.[08:59:57] <x_or> I think I got it working, I removed the vivoh.net stuff from the virtual and reloaded postfix and I am seeing mail in there now.[09:01:19] <Aprogas> You should avoid unqualified addresses, even subsms@localhost is better than just subsms[09:01:29] <x_or> Ah, OK.[09:01:32] <rcsheets> ^ ^ ^ yes, that.[09:01:44] <x_or> So, put subsms@localhost into the virtual file? That makes sense.[09:01:55] <rcsheets> also, you've explained how you want to do it, but you still haven't really said what you want to do.[09:02:50] <x_or> I want to receive all emails addressed to @subsms.com into a single user account. I am going to pipe these into a ruby on rails server for processing using a .forward file and some combination of procmail and or a script.[09:03:05] <Aprogas> Why?[09:03:18] <uqlev> rcsheets, x_or he is making spam research project[09:03:40] <rcsheets> research? huh.[09:03:57] <x_or> I will be using emails generated like 0c2342342234 at subsms dot com mapped to another email address, so a user can get a special email address which only they can use to contact the system.[09:04:28] <x_or> If anyone sends email to that address and the from address is not exactly rchseets at somedomain dot com, for example, I will drop the mail.[09:04:58] <rcsheets> interesting[09:05:10] <Aprogas> I still don't really understand why this would be useful.[09:05:11] <rcsheets> so you're basically using the from address as a password[09:05:23] <x_or> I'm sure I will get a lot of spam with all kinds of matching RCPT addresses, but it is unlikely they will find the private FROM address and use that too. And if they don't, the mail is dropped.[09:05:27] <x_or> More or less.[09:05:38] <Aprogas> So your goal is to block spam?[09:05:56] <x_or> No, my goal is to make it easy to add data to the system using only email.[09:07:21] <rcsheets> and your assurance that the data is legitimate is the presence of the correct from address[09:07:30] <x_or> Exactly.[09:07:39] <rcsheets> as long as you're comfortable with how easy that is to forge, you should be fine :)[09:07:43] <Aprogas> Is your mailserver only going to receive these specialised mails?[09:08:00] <x_or> I'll have other safe guards in place, like a limit on the amount of data which can be received.[09:09:02] <x_or> Aprogas: meaning, will it be configured at the mailserver level to drop emails? No, I was going to have my web server doing the dropping. I will profile this at some point, if I need to do it somewhere else I will. For now to simplify I will do it at the web server application level.[09:09:19] <Aprogas> I meant whether it is also going to receive other types of mail.[09:09:31] <x_or> For other domains? Or, other types of email?[09:10:27] <Aprogas> If you put a stick of dynamite in the mailserver and blow it up, does anything else stop working?[09:10:46] <x_or> Hmm, good question.[09:10:53] <Aprogas> Does the mailserver have any other purpose than receiving these data-feeding mails?[09:11:08] <x_or> Well, users could not import new data (using email) but the web application server does not need the mail server to run.[09:11:13] <x_or> Does that answer your question?[09:11:19] <Aprogas> No.[09:11:22] <x_or> Ah, OK.[09:11:36] <x_or> I am not planning on using it for other things, but I could.[09:11:42] <rcsheets> i'm curious why Aprogas wants to blow up your mail server[09:11:49] <x_or> Are you asking because it will probably get completely bogged down with spam?[09:11:50] <Aprogas> I want to know whether this mailserver also stores mailboxes for regular users, handling forwards, or whatever else a mailserver could do.[09:12:01] <x_or> Aprogas, are you from 4chan?[09:12:02] <x_or> :)[09:12:12] <x_or> No, no other users on this system.[09:12:19] <Aprogas> I am asking because you could just turn reject_unauth_destination into just reject, and use SASL login for those few users that are legit.[09:12:40] <rcsheets> yes, that would be sensible assuming the clients are capable of SMTP AUTH[09:12:51] <x_or> Ah, good idea. But, the clients will probably be using cell phones. So, that probably won't work in many cases.[09:12:54] <x_or> Good idea though.[09:13:56] *** rcsheets` has joined #postfix[09:14:09] *** rcsheets has quit IRC[09:14:20] <x_or> I'm basically using what Google Docs does, generate a unique email address and hope no one figures out that private address. And, if I start seeing a ton of stuff through there, then I will assume it went public and block it.[09:14:31] <x_or> Someone accidentally posted it on their twitter feed, for example.[09:14:34] *** uqlev has quit IRC[09:15:01] <rcsheets`> you can email things to google docs now?[09:15:03] *** rcsheets` is now known as rcsheets[09:15:40] <x_or> It has had that for a long time, I rarely use it, but sort of nice.[09:15:55] <rcsheets> i guess i wasn't paying attention[09:16:00] <x_or> Actually, for a long time, since I think the domain is writely.com, the company google acquired.[09:16:17] <rcsheets> oh wow[09:16:40] <rcsheets> yeah writely was a long time ago[09:18:43] <x_or> What are you guys doing up so late?[09:20:05] <rcsheets> irc doesn't really have a time zone[09:20:12] <rcsheets> though it is 3:30am here[09:21:07] <rcsheets> i'm just getting some work done and thinking about eating[09:21:36] <x_or> So, you are on the east coast of US? I'm in Portland, OR, it is not so late here.[09:22:38] <Aprogas> The biggest organism of the planet lives in Oregon.[09:23:48] <x_or> Oh, yeah? What is that?[09:24:05] <Aprogas> Some 2200 acre fungus.[09:24:20] <x_or> Wow, I had not heard of that.[09:25:54] <rcsheets> i'm in ohio[09:26:38] <x_or> OK.[09:29:03] <x_or> Well, thanks for your troubleshooting. I'm off to bed.[09:29:17] <rcsheets> bye[09:31:32] *** freaky[t]_ is now known as freaky[t][09:33:53] *** JonnyV has joined #postfix[09:39:40] *** jan_ has quit IRC[09:56:58] *** dragonheart has quit IRC[10:03:46] *** Motoko-chan has quit IRC[10:26:34] *** x_or has quit IRC[10:56:33] *** Trengo has quit IRC[11:06:14] *** karlgus has quit IRC[11:10:51] *** Matic`Makovec has joined #postfix[11:12:24] *** niki has quit IRC[11:26:42] *** master_of_master has quit IRC[11:28:22] *** master_of_master has joined #postfix[11:32:01] *** karlgus has joined #postfix[11:46:27] *** biggimat has joined #postfix[11:48:09] *** Matic`Makovec has quit IRC[12:10:30] *** navaki has joined #postfix[12:35:02] *** _W_ has quit IRC[12:37:35] *** GoGi has joined #postfix[12:40:58] *** _W_ has joined #postfix[13:01:15] *** smica has joined #postfix[13:26:02] *** Tykling has quit IRC[13:28:42] *** fOrsberg has quit IRC[13:36:04] *** fOrsberg has joined #postfix[13:42:05] *** Tykling has joined #postfix[13:47:00] *** navaki has quit IRC[13:57:26] *** Golemus has joined #postfix[14:19:27] *** biggimat is now known as Matic`Makovec[14:23:14] *** Golemus has quit IRC[14:29:04] *** TomHome has quit IRC[14:34:33] *** MAAAAD has quit IRC[14:35:11] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix[14:41:15] *** meeso has quit IRC[14:45:09] *** smica has quit IRC[15:13:00] *** fOrsberg is now known as forsberg[15:18:41] *** warriorforGod has left #postfix[15:20:26] *** passthru has joined #postfix[15:24:16] *** saurabhb has joined #postfix[15:27:04] *** Trengo has joined #postfix[15:33:58] *** henriknj has quit IRC[15:38:35] *** freaky[t] has quit IRC[15:42:20] *** SKy546 has joined #postfix[15:43:01] <SKy546> hello, is there a way to change/set the umask for postfix?[15:46:06] *** freaky[t] has joined #postfix[15:46:17] <adaptr> explain[15:49:38] <SKy546> Im using postfix with virtual aliases, mail is moved into their specific directories, but when a new file is created it has the wrong permissions 755, i need the files to be created with the permissions 770 so that roundcube can read those files, as now it does not have the sufficient rights to read and it hangs and then returs an r/w error[15:50:10] <SKy546> basicallly i tried changing the global system umask, which i achieved but postfix still creates those files with the wrong permissions[15:53:24] <Zerberus> SKy546: have you considered that you are doing something wrong in your setup?[15:54:02] <SKy546> i have, but havent found out what yet[15:54:42] <adaptr> SKy546: 770 is always wrong. files should have 644 permissions or possibly 640[15:55:06] <adaptr> also, roundcube is an IMAP client. it never, ever reads mail files directly[15:55:09] <SKy546> well the default umask was 022, which should translate to 755 if im not wrong[15:55:23] <adaptr> if you;'re not using it that wya, change it[15:55:32] *** passthru has quit IRC[15:55:34] <adaptr> yes, you're wrong[15:55:47] <adaptr> a umask of 022 will create files that are 644[15:55:59] <SKy546> i have dovecot as an imap server[15:56:19] <adaptr> then configure roundcube to use that[15:57:39] <SKy546> but even if i configure dovecot, wont it still have problems reading the files?[15:58:33] <SKy546> ive set the mail dirs in dovecot to match those of the postfix virtual aliases, and use roundcube to log in to dovecot[15:58:53] <SKy546> something wrong with that setup?[16:08:18] <SKy546> if umask 022 will create 644, what umask will crate 77x ?[16:08:26] <Aprogas> dovecot either assumes the uid of the real UNIX user that the mailbox belongs to, or it assumes the uid of a global virtual-mail user if using virtual uesrs.[16:10:10] <SKy546> so the fact that it does not have the rigth permissions is odd at best, as it should assume the uid of vmail[16:11:02] *** AlexC_ has joined #postfix[16:11:04] <AlexC_> morning[16:11:27] <AlexC_> when using 'virtual_mailbox_domains' and aliases, say I alias all @example.com email to @example.org - do I have to list example.com in 'virtual_mailbox_domains' or just example.org ?[16:29:40] *** JoKoT3 has quit IRC[16:39:05] *** saurabhb has quit IRC[16:57:44] *** axisys has joined #postfix[17:01:04] *** henriknj has joined #postfix[17:03:23] <adaptr> !virtual_mailbox_domains[17:03:23] <knoba> adaptr: "virtual_mailbox_domains" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: The list of domains that are by default delivered via the $virtual_transport mail delivery transport. This list uses the same syntax as the mydestination configuration parameter.[17:04:06] <AlexC_> indeed, though do the aliases require it?[17:10:42] <adaptr> !virtual_alias_maps[17:10:42] <knoba> adaptr: "virtual_alias_maps" : A configuration parameter in the main.cf: Optional lookup tables that alias specific mail addresses or domains to other local or remote addresses. The table format and lookups are documented in virtual(5).[17:11:09] <adaptr> apart from the word "virtual", those settings have nothing to do with one another.[17:20:37] <Aprogas> Maybe virtual_alias_maps should be renamed cleanup_alias_maps.[17:21:28] <roe> I prefer rtfm_alias_maps[17:22:22] <adaptr> global_fake_addresses[17:22:42] <adaptr> most people don't even understand what "alias" means[17:23:25] <adaptr> somebody petitioon wietse to rename it global-fake-addresses_that_you_want_to_fake_to_another_maybe_also_fake_address[17:23:40] <adaptr> _and_loop[17:23:51] <roe> not sure how he'll like that[17:23:53] * Aprogas builds a nest[17:23:55] <roe> seems a bit....[17:23:57] <roe> wordy[17:24:01] <adaptr> his own names suddenly don't seem so long anymore[17:24:30] <adaptr> roe: good point. I prefer not to get my ass burned on the list[17:25:03] <roe> auwww, but I like watching people get their ass burned on the list[17:25:09] <adaptr> OTHER people, yes[17:38:02] *** SKy546 has quit IRC[17:43:31] <AlexC_> adaptr: actually, I just tried it - and yes it does need it[17:44:24] <adaptr> AlexC_: bullshit[17:46:56] <AlexC_> adaptr: nope[17:47:46] <AlexC_> adaptr: unless we are thinking of something different. I have "virtual_mailbox_domains = /etc/postfix/virtual/domains" and "virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual/aliases"[17:48:26] <AlexC_> in the domains file, I have 'example.com' and in aliases I have 'foo at example dot co.uk foo at example dot com' - without 'example.co.uk' in the domains file, I get relay access denied[17:48:57] <Aprogas> Do any mailboxes exist under example.co.uk ?[17:49:28] <AlexC_> no[17:49:47] <Aprogas> Then it is not a virtual_mailbox_domain.[17:49:55] <Aprogas> !tell AlexC_ address_classes[17:49:55] <knoba> AlexC_: "address_classes" : http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html describes how Postfix deals with different classes of addresses: local, relay, virtual alias, virtual mailbox, and Internet.[17:50:05] <Aprogas> That explains the differences.[17:50:30] <AlexC_> Aprogas: if it's not, then why do I *need* it listed under virtual_mailbox_domain ?[17:50:38] <adaptr> you do not *need* it[17:50:59] <adaptr> the two settings are unrelated[17:51:06] <Aprogas> If you want your mailserver to accept mail for a domain, it should be in one of the address classes, but not the wrong one.[17:51:24] <adaptr> if not having a virtual_mailbox_domain means you get a relay denied, how is that related to anything else[17:51:29] <Aprogas> At first putting the domain in the wrong address class might seem to work, but eventually it's going to cause weirdness.[17:51:53] <AlexC_> ok, so putting it within virtual_mailbox_domain makes it work, but it's not the correct place to put it - is what you're both saying?[17:52:00] <Aprogas> Yes.[17:52:06] <Aprogas> !tell AlexC_ virtual[17:52:07] <knoba> AlexC_: "virtual" : a way to configure additional domains and user accounts (that do not need to exist in your /etc/passwd). See: http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html[17:52:15] <AlexC_> right, ok make sense[17:52:20] <adaptr> if you intend to accept and alias all mail for that domain, make it a virtual_alias_domain[17:52:36] <adaptr> consider that this is not usual -= you normally accept mail for different reasons[17:53:30] <AlexC_> well it's we've moved off the .com domain and to .org, but we still want all .com emails to work (i.e, be redirected to the .org version)[17:53:58] <Aprogas> And you're manually duplicating every foo at example dot co.uk to alias to foo at example dot com ?[17:54:38] <AlexC_> no, I have ' at example dot co.uk @example.com' in my 'aliases' file[17:55:26] <Aprogas> Yes, that is less work.[17:55:57] <Aprogas> So long as the right-hand side addresses in your aliases are also handled by Postfix, it can figure out whether that mail is going to be deliverable before-DATA.[17:56:50] <AlexC_> yeah they are handled by postfix. So, I need to put 'example.co.uk' in 'virtual_alias_domains' right?[17:57:10] <Aprogas> Probably.[17:59:03] *** sherr has quit IRC[18:04:06] <AlexC_> seems to be working :)[18:04:12] <AlexC_> thanks[18:07:12] *** x_or has joined #postfix[18:13:45] *** uqlev has joined #postfix[18:22:05] *** rajijoom has joined #postfix[18:35:19] *** jeev has joined #postfix[18:41:24] *** dxtr has quit IRC[18:42:33] *** UserReg_CL has joined #postfix[18:42:37] <UserReg_CL> hi ![18:46:22] *** AlexC_ has quit IRC[18:51:41] *** dxtr has joined #postfix[18:51:43] *** sherr has joined #postfix[18:52:17] *** uqlev has quit IRC[19:13:50] *** higuita has quit IRC[19:17:46] *** JonnyV has quit IRC[19:20:35] *** x_or has quit IRC[19:21:12] *** x_or has joined #postfix[19:22:53] *** x_or has quit IRC[20:13:35] *** GoGi has quit IRC[20:24:35] *** Rado has quit IRC[20:59:12] *** niki has joined #postfix[21:00:13] *** forsberg is now known as fOrsberg[21:02:38] *** smica has joined #postfix[21:15:12] *** Rado has joined #postfix[21:26:24] *** uqlev has joined #postfix[21:35:24] *** benizac has joined #postfix[21:35:37] *** onclebob has joined #postfix[21:37:25] <onclebob> Having trouble relaying mail even when my smtp is correct and get no errors in log[21:37:50] <onclebob> using debian5 postfix[21:38:00] <onclebob> apache2[21:39:06] <Aprogas> !tell onclebob welcome[21:39:06] <knoba> onclebob: "welcome" : welcome to #postfix! if you're joining for the first time, or are new to irc, the first thing you'll want to do is read the channel topic (/topic). it includes crucial instructions on how to effectively ask for help here, and what data you should include with your questions. the degree of success you'll have is directly related to how effectively you're able to follow those guidelines.[21:39:08] <Aprogas> !tell onclebob no_logs[21:39:08] <knoba> onclebob: "no_logs" : Nothing in your mail logs commonly means one of two things: either your syslogd is broken (try restarting it), or the connections are not coming to your server. Check your firewall/networking and the DNS for the domain in question. also see !logs.[21:41:10] <benizac> Hi! what's the difference between smtpd_milter and the access policy delegation (smtpd_recipient_restrictions, check_policy_service)?[21:41:56] <Aprogas> benizac: Different protocol, and policy services only get pre-DATA information.[21:43:48] <benizac> Is there any performance or security difference?[21:44:35] <Aprogas> Yes, being able to reject something before DATA, saves having to receive that DATA.[21:45:03] <benizac> I mean with only smtpd stage[21:48:56] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:49:53] *** pickcoder has joined #postfix[21:51:41] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:51:48] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:52:49] *** schnoobby has joined #postfix[21:52:51] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:52:57] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:53:15] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:53:22] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:54:37] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:54:43] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:55:54] *** draik has joined #postfix[21:56:00] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:56:07] <draik> How do I enable postfix to listen on port 465?[21:56:09] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:56:24] <Aprogas> !tell draik smtps[21:56:24] <knoba> draik: "smtps" : Port 465 is smtps, SMTP over SSL, a deprecated means of submission. Postfix can implement smtps with a separate smtpd(8) listener with \"-o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes\". See the commented example in master.cf.[21:57:03] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:57:09] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:57:23] <draik> Thank you.[21:57:37] *** higuita has quit IRC[21:58:34] *** higuita has joined #postfix[21:58:49] *** LinuxCode has joined #postfix[22:00:04] *** ib-mobile has quit IRC[22:00:08] *** ib-mobile has joined #postfix[22:03:41] *** bobbyd has joined #postfix[22:05:08] <onclebob> exit[22:05:22] *** draik has left #postfix[22:13:47] *** higuita has quit IRC[22:14:51] *** onclebob has quit IRC[22:15:26] *** diqpib has quit IRC[22:16:04] *** higuita has joined #postfix[22:29:32] *** s0ber has quit IRC[22:30:51] *** s0ber has joined #postfix[22:31:42] *** rajijoom has joined #postfix[22:33:12] *** uqlev has quit IRC[22:36:11] *** Matic`Makovec has quit IRC[22:38:41] *** TmBerg has quit IRC[22:43:32] *** nihe has quit IRC[22:46:26] *** nihe has joined #postfix[22:51:58] *** henriknj has quit IRC[23:00:49] *** pickcoder has quit IRC[23:14:39] *** TomHome has joined #postfix[23:14:40] *** LinuxCode has quit IRC[23:15:31] *** war9407 has quit IRC[23:20:00] *** rob0 is now known as JollyRob0[23:23:56] *** karlgus has quit IRC[23:31:46] *** smica has quit IRC[23:37:30] *** war9407 has joined #postfix[23:44:49] *** rlb has joined #postfix[23:46:51] <Aprogas> I run a test Postfix with DSPAM in a VirtualBox on a machine that isn't always on. I'm looking for a safe way to duplicate some of my real mail stream to that server when it is on, but not throw errors or bounces when it is off. always_bcc seems like it would send bounces to original sender so that's not an option.[23:49:12] <Zerberus> Aprogas: you may try http://www.snertsoft.com/sendmail/roundhouse/[23:50:44] <Zerberus> well, there is certainly nothing available to be that intelligent to not bounce if your test instance is off, it just may queue[23:52:03] *** Gambaroni has quit IRC[23:53:09] <Aprogas> It's not a real mail stream, just a test copy; it's okay to just silently fail instead of bounce.[23:55:15] <Aprogas> I guess I could just add to my .forward "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -f bit-bucket at harry dot aprogas.local bayestrain at jd dot test"[23:55:34] <Aprogas> Although that might throw the bayes a bit off-balance by munging my from/to, for the test setup it just might do.