[00:05:07] *** hparker has quit IRC
[00:10:55] <lunaphyte> great, you left the channel SPEECHLESS
[00:12:26] <adaptr> INORITE
[00:12:45] <adaptr> let's face it, only because seekwill isn't around
[00:14:14] <rob0> seekwill is here in spirit
[00:14:39] <adaptr> he's your invisible friend ?
[00:14:59] <adaptr> I know he's not imaginary, because no-one in his right mind would imagine HIM as friend
[00:15:15] <adaptr> ...wait....
[00:15:20] <rob0> who said I was in my right mind?
[00:15:28] * adaptr facedesks
[00:15:38] <adaptr> sorry, forgot where I was for a moment
[00:17:20] *** krzee has quit IRC
[00:17:21] *** wsmsg has joined #postfix
[00:21:01] *** ZoB has quit IRC
[00:21:05] *** ZoB has joined #postfix
[00:23:07] *** mambaw has quit IRC
[00:25:04] *** e-anima has quit IRC
[00:28:57] <adaptr> I snooted qmail on serverfault today, and promptly got half a dozen upvotes
[00:30:02] *** biggi_mat has quit IRC
[00:30:32] <adaptr> "haylp, qmail doesn't work on my super-old centos installation!"
[00:30:45] <adaptr> "qmail shouldn't work. it's a decade out of date and flaunts the standards"
[00:30:49] <adaptr> +6 :D
[00:32:04] * rob0 high-sixes adaptr
[00:43:21] *** phantasm66 has joined #postfix
[00:43:36] *** snearch has quit IRC
[00:47:34] *** phantasm66 has quit IRC
[00:50:35] *** wdp has quit IRC
[01:02:20] *** beetlej00z has joined #postfix
[01:03:49] <beetlej00z> I'm trying to relay mail from one postfix server but the receiving server is rejecting it. Both servers are on my local network and I added the local network to main.cf....am I missing anything?
[01:04:03] <beetlej00z> *from one postfix server to another*
[01:12:26] <beetlej00z> anyone?
[01:13:00] <beetlej00z> Beuhler....beuhler...
[01:14:12] * NorrinRadd will fake the role of the experts
[01:14:18] <NorrinRadd> beetlej00z: why relay from one to another
[01:14:50] <beetlej00z> Because I want that server to send out the emails instead of the one that's sending them
[01:15:09] <NorrinRadd> it complicates matters. why do it?
[01:15:10] <beetlej00z> It's for a CRM application
[01:15:27] <sp00kz> add the ip to trusted networks
[01:15:30] <beetlej00z> I did
[01:15:46] <sp00kz> can you telnet to it?
[01:15:53] <beetlej00z> yes
[01:15:56] <sp00kz> if so, what's the reject reason
[01:16:00] <beetlej00z> NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[192.168.2.57]: 553 5.7.1
[01:16:24] <sp00kz> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)' ?
[01:16:31] <beetlej00z> no
[01:16:40] <sp00kz> oh sorry
[01:16:51] <sp00kz> you must force authentication on it
[01:16:54] <beetlej00z> Sender address rejected: not owned by user
[01:17:18] <beetlej00z> The account I'm using is an admin on the box
[01:17:29] <beetlej00z> it's coming from a server on the same subnet
[01:17:51] <beetlej00z> local subnet obviously
[01:18:34] <beetlej00z> this seems like a simple thing
[01:18:42] <beetlej00z> is it really that complicated?
[01:19:04] <sp00kz> what's your from:
[01:20:23] <sp00kz> You can remove 'reject_sender_login_mismatch' in postfix /etc/postfix/main.cf
[01:21:17] <NorrinRadd> also, who is the mail to?
[01:21:30] <NorrinRadd> "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts"
[01:22:27] <beetlej00z> The mail goes out to many different addresses
[01:22:36] <beetlej00z> it get autogenerated by our CRM
[01:22:38] *** master_of_master has quit IRC
[01:22:56] <NorrinRadd> what is smtpd_recipient_restriction set to?
[01:23:02] <NorrinRadd> seems like there's no whitelist for mynetwork
[01:23:26] <NorrinRadd> and any other smtpd_ lines
[01:24:03] <beetlej00z> I have permit_mynetworks directly preceding reject_sender_login_mismatch
[01:24:17] <beetlej00z> Why isn't that enough?
[01:24:25] *** master_of_master has joined #postfix
[01:24:31] <NorrinRadd> because there are several block options
[01:25:50] <NorrinRadd> seems like one of the restrictions is getting hit
[01:26:25] <beetlej00z> Now I'm getting this: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table;
[01:28:21] <NorrinRadd> if there was a whitelist, don't think any reject would be showing
[01:28:50] <beetlej00z> Why do I need to whitelist anything if it's on the same subnet?
[01:29:13] <NorrinRadd> because by default same subnet is not whitelisted
[01:29:40] <beetlej00z> 192.x.x.x/24 should be globally trusted IMO. Would make things a lot easier
[01:30:33] <NorrinRadd> that mask doesn't even make sense
[01:31:05] <beetlej00z> 192.168.1.0/24
[01:31:07] <beetlej00z> better?
[01:31:08] <NorrinRadd> and if it was written correctly, 192 is an option, not a requirement. not every lan uses 192.xx.xx.xx
[01:32:15] <NorrinRadd> no point shipping broken by default. only host to trust by default is self. nothing else
[01:32:19] <beetlej00z> Fine, in more direct terms....whatever network is connected to the inside/trusted interface should be allowed IMO.
[01:32:53] <beetlej00z> start filtering from there
[01:33:19] <NorrinRadd> "inside/trusted interface" is defined how?
[01:33:47] <NorrinRadd> its too random. 127/8 is good.
[01:33:54] <NorrinRadd> so, fix $mynetworks
[01:38:04] <rob0> CRM?
[01:40:59] <NorrinRadd> rob0: one thing i don't know yet, inter mta communication is smtp?
[01:41:41] <NorrinRadd> if it is, and it works with smtpd_recipient_restrictions set to permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, why is that?
[01:43:30] <rob0> Most MTA-to-MTA transport is SMTP. I don't understand the rest.
[01:44:08] <beetlej00z> I added my subnet to $mynetworks
[01:44:53] <beetlej00z> restarted the services
[01:45:54] <beetlej00z> smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient = yes
[01:45:59] <beetlej00z> this is confusing to me
[01:46:23] <beetlej00z> If I want the server to just relay, why does it care who the recipient is?
[01:46:32] <rob0> me too, because my question was not answered
[01:46:42] <adaptr> what do you think "just relay" means?
[01:46:44] <NorrinRadd> rob0: if smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject
[01:46:55] <NorrinRadd> would that block incoming mail to the network, from the internet?
[01:46:57] <adaptr> !goal
[01:46:57] <knoba> adaptr: "goal" : describe your goal, not what you think the solution is
[01:47:05] <rob0> NorrinRadd, yes.
[01:47:09] <NorrinRadd> rob0: ok
[01:47:10] <adaptr> no
[01:47:23] <NorrinRadd> adaptr: no?
[01:47:24] <adaptr> it would block incoming mail not from $mynetworks
[01:47:28] <NorrinRadd> right
[01:47:30] <NorrinRadd> that's what i meant
[01:47:41] <rob0> it would block every client not in $mynetworks
[01:47:43] <beetlej00z> I don't care about incoming mail
[01:47:46] <beetlej00z> just outgoing
[01:47:48] <adaptr> there's no "direction" to mail. mail comes in, mail goes out.
[01:47:52] <rob0> regardless of any other factors
[01:47:53] <adaptr> ALL mail
[01:48:21] <beetlej00z> server A: 192.168.2.1 => Server B: 192.168.2.2
[01:48:24] <beetlej00z> that's my goal
[01:48:38] <adaptr> because...
[01:48:39] <rob0> heh, no, that is not the goal
[01:48:54] <rob0> that is what you think will accomplish the real goal
[01:49:03] <NorrinRadd> beetlej00z: if you don't care about the recipient, why are you setting smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient to yes?
[01:49:05] <beetlej00z> server A is a CRM that sends out email notifications. I want to hand them off to Server B to send them out
[01:49:16] <rob0> What. Is. CRM.
[01:49:24] <adaptr> it implies running two mail servers, for one. WHY do you think you need two mail servers when you have trouble running one ?
[01:49:26] <beetlej00z> ever heard of salesforce.com?
[01:49:31] <beetlej00z> zoho?
[01:49:33] <adaptr> urgh
[01:49:34] <beetlej00z> MS CRM?
[01:49:52] <beetlej00z> CRM = Customer Relation Management
[01:49:56] <adaptr> beetlej00z: stop using useless, non-smtp-related terms. we do. not. care.
[01:50:20] <beetlej00z> adaptr: rob0 was asking me what a CRM is...I told him
[01:50:20] <NorrinRadd> well i don't see how knowing what crm is would help the troubleshooting
[01:50:21] <rob0> and this CRM wants to send mail?
[01:50:32] <NorrinRadd> yes
[01:50:41] <adaptr> !tell NorrinRadd nullclient
[01:50:41] <knoba> NorrinRadd: "nullclient" : a null client is a computer that can only send mail. it receives no mail from the network, and it does not deliver any mail locally. while postfix can be configured to fill this role, it is often unnecessary overkill, and a much simpler software package is more appropriate. see !nullclient_software for more details.
[01:50:53] <NorrinRadd> i had the exact same question; WHY do you think you need two servers?
[01:51:17] *** penrod has quit IRC
[01:51:23] <beetlej00z> I want server B to send out the notifications...that's it
[01:51:36] <NorrinRadd> then you don't need a second server...
[01:51:38] <beetlej00z> server A can be a client...IDC
[01:52:00] <beetlej00z> I just don't want my CRM box sending them out anymore.
[01:52:21] <adaptr> sudo shutdown -h now
[01:52:29] <adaptr> fixed.
[01:52:31] <beetlej00z> init 0 is faster
[01:52:41] <beetlej00z> funny
[01:52:41] <rob0> CRM box can have a nullclient pointed to the mail server
[01:52:46] <adaptr> ...it is nothing like it
[01:53:04] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[01:53:05] <beetlej00z> anyway
[01:53:20] <rob0> no idea yet what you are really asking
[01:54:14] <NorrinRadd> i temporarily gave up on finding out WHY the mail has to have an extra hop in its delivery
[01:54:25] <beetlej00z> I have 2 servers running postfix. I want server A to relay through server B instead of directly sending out mail. server B is my MX and I don't want to fool around with RDNS etc
[01:54:28] <NorrinRadd> "I want it" is not why
[01:54:40] <rob0> !relayhost
[01:54:40] <knoba> rob0: "relayhost" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: The default host to send non-local mail to when no entry is matched in the optional transport(5) table. When no relayhost is given, mail is routed directly to the destination. If your relay host requires authentication see the !saslclient channel factoid.
[01:54:43] <rob0> !basic
[01:54:46] <rob0> done
[01:55:15] <adaptr> an MX has nothing to do with sending mail. common misconception
[01:55:24] <adaptr> #23, if I recall
[01:57:08] <beetlej00z> Good luck sending mail to other domains w/o an MX record or a RDNS. I give you 2 days at most before you are blacklisted everywhere.
[01:57:25] <beetlej00z> That's the only reason I'm even talking about all this.
[01:58:00] <NorrinRadd> beetlej00z: you have $relay_recipient_maps set?
[01:58:17] <beetlej00z> let me check..brb
[01:58:21] <NorrinRadd> or $local_recipient_maps?
[01:58:22] <rob0> whoa, relay_recipient_maps is probably not relevant.
[01:58:42] <rob0> In fact ... enough of this.
[01:58:55] <NorrinRadd> he said he set smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient to yes, it is by default, but if he's looking into it, maybe he set a map
[01:59:04] <rob0> beetlej00z, what you missed was reading the channel /topic and making a pastebin to avoid the silly guessing games.
[01:59:53] <rob0> That pastebin should include a complete and concise problem description. Thank you.
[02:00:08] <beetlej00z> you're welcome
[02:06:03] *** n0sq has joined #postfix
[02:07:15] *** bezourox has quit IRC
[02:08:37] *** bezourox has joined #postfix
[02:10:59] <beetlej00z> Ok...just have one server now. Server A is now functioning as a client to server B. Norrin was right. Just need the one.
[02:11:20] <beetlej00z> I've always been a SS fan ;)
[02:14:30] *** kyconquers has quit IRC
[02:17:49] <beetlej00z> "Authorized networks are defined with the mynetworks configuration parameter. The default is to authorize all clients in the IP subnetworks that the local machine is attached to."
[02:18:40] <lunaphyte> these days, i discourage use of mynetworks at all.
[02:18:53] <beetlej00z> even locally?
[02:19:05] *** penrod has quit IRC
[02:19:35] <lunaphyte> at all
[02:19:59] <beetlej00z> What is your preferred method?
[02:20:26] <beetlej00z> sasl_auth?
[02:20:49] <lunaphyte> you're misunderstanding what i'm saying, although i feel that way too.
[02:21:17] <beetlej00z> it's ok...I've been behind the 8 ball since I got here.
[02:21:18] <lunaphyte> i didn't say i discourage use of authorization based on source address [although i do as well]
[02:21:38] <lunaphyte> !check_client_access
[02:21:38] <knoba> lunaphyte: "check_client_access" : Search the named access database for the client name, parent domains, client address, or networks obtained by stripping least significant octets. Reject if the result is REJECT or XX text . Permit otherwise
[02:22:30] <beetlej00z> I'm not the far into the README yet. ;)
[02:22:40] <lunaphyte> i encourage smtp auth for all submission, regardless of anything. there's really no reason not to, and it's prudent these days anyway.
[02:23:04] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[02:23:18] <lunaphyte> that being said, if you *could* make some compelling argument to not require smtp auth for some set of clients, and instead rely solely on source address, i would not use mynetworks. i would use check_client_access.
[02:24:00] <beetlej00z> i c
[02:25:29] <lunaphyte> the concept behind mynetworks comes mostly from days gone by, and unfortunately seems to give the wrong impression to folks just learning things.
[02:26:28] *** kyconquers has joined #postfix
[02:26:36] <rob0> mynetworks gives an easy way for things to Just Work Out Of The Box.
[02:27:00] <rob0> but otherwise it is just a shorthand for check_client_access.
[02:34:11] <beetlej00z> thanks for the help....ciao
[02:34:20] *** beetlej00z has left #postfix
[02:37:48] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[02:54:17] *** chadmaynard has joined #postfix
[03:26:58] *** chadmaynard has quit IRC
[03:28:27] *** penrod has quit IRC
[03:29:39] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[03:34:35] *** lunaphyte_ has quit IRC
[03:45:35] *** xxzz has joined #postfix
[03:48:08] *** penrod has quit IRC
[03:49:25] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[03:55:58] *** krzee has quit IRC
[03:56:26] *** danblack has quit IRC
[04:07:56] <NorrinRadd> the default $mydestination includes the ip address of the inet interfaces?
[04:08:47] <jimpop> yes, on debian
[04:08:58] <jimpop> !debian
[04:08:59] <knoba> jimpop: "debian" : Please see /usr/share/doc/postfix/README.Debian for Debian-specific information. This probably applies to Ubuntu and most other Debian-derivative distributions as well.
[04:12:12] *** voldial has joined #postfix
[04:13:57] *** danblack has joined #postfix
[04:16:17] <voldial> When I call a external MDA using "mailbox_command = someMDA" I am experiencing some unexpected behavior regarding supplemental groups the user is a member of. In particular, the output of "id" and "id $USER" are not the same, "id $USER" shows the other groups that the user belongs to in addition to the primary group. Why do these command have different outputs? If I "su" to the user in question, "id" gives me the same output as "id $USER".
[04:16:44] <voldial> $USER in this case is the bash builtin
[04:17:07] <voldial> I verified that the EUID and the RUID are the same.
[04:17:35] *** xxzz has quit IRC
[04:21:11] <rob0> this behavior is documented in local(8) ... supplemental groups are not used.
[04:22:38] <voldial> rob0, much appreciated. I'll go read that. my end goal is to be able to change the group ownership of a file the MDA created to one of it's supplemental groups... maybe I need to make that group the user's primary group to accomplish this. I'll go read more. Thanks again.
[04:23:16] <rob0> unfortunately that is what you'd have to do
[04:23:58] <rob0> also read aliases(5) and the parts about command execution
[04:24:07] <voldial> cool. no big deal in this case as it's a single purpose machine
[04:24:18] <voldial> will do
[04:26:35] <NorrinRadd> jimpop: thanks. mores specifically, root at 71 dot 129.150.89 would be accepted if root is in local_recipient_maps?
[04:27:13] <jimpop> yep, or even if root is in aliases
[04:28:59] <NorrinRadd> ok. thanks. actually don't seem to see anything about that in /usr/share/doc/postfix/README.Debian
[04:32:14] <voldial> neat. man 5 aliases provides a alternative to mailbox_command in main.cf
[04:32:52] <voldial> I wonder if that enables secondary groups... testing...
[04:37:56] <rob0> root at 71 dot 129.150.89 is not a valid address
[04:38:20] <rob0> root at [71 dot 129.150.89] is a valid address
[04:39:51] <NorrinRadd> without the brackets, there's a mx lookup?
[04:42:41] <NorrinRadd> guessing not, so wondering what's invalid about it
[04:42:45] <rob0> without the brackets it is improper syntax
[04:43:11] <rob0> RFC 821/2821/5321
[04:43:28] <rob0> try it ... send to that address
[04:48:38] *** nokia3510 has quit IRC
[04:48:39] *** xxzz has joined #postfix
[04:51:57] <NorrinRadd> rob0: so ip's on the mydestinations line should be in brackets also?
[04:52:47] <rob0> (why are you interested in receiving mail at IP literals?)
[04:53:30] <rob0> tbh I don't know, I would have to look that up. I use names for mail, not literals.
[04:53:44] <rob0> postconf.5.html#mydestination
[04:59:45] *** chadmaynard has joined #postfix
[05:02:22] *** nokia3510 has joined #postfix
[05:04:08] <NorrinRadd> nevermind. if not mx routed, wouldn't reach my mail server anyway
[05:07:20] *** voldial has quit IRC
[05:13:27] *** MAAAAD has joined #postfix
[05:14:37] *** bezourox has quit IRC
[05:16:09] *** MAAAAAD has quit IRC
[05:16:13] *** bezourox has joined #postfix
[05:20:19] *** voldial has joined #postfix
[05:23:25] *** penrod has quit IRC
[05:24:23] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[05:29:12] *** danblack has quit IRC
[05:38:22] *** roe has joined #postfix
[05:42:59] <roe> so I'm having some load problems on my server
[05:43:49] <roe> it looks like most of my problem emanates from amavis and clam
[05:44:07] <roe> I'm wondering if there is any advice the minimize the impact
[05:44:26] <gregb> By most of your problems
[05:44:31] <gregb> can you give more detail?
[05:44:51] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[05:45:00] <roe> well load will jump up to ~50
[05:45:06] <gregb> Diagnosing your load issue goes beyond figuring out the utility that could cause it.
[05:45:20] <roe> that is true
[05:45:29] <roe> it seems to be mostly due to CPU not IO wait
[05:45:35] <gregb> when it happens, how many processes of amavis and clam are running?
[05:45:45] <roe> amavis is limited to 2
[05:45:46] <gregb> I was going to ask how the I/O was on the system
[05:46:01] <gregb> ok, and each process is using a lot of CPU
[05:46:02] <roe> we are graphing iostats
[05:46:09] *** inf_l00p has joined #postfix
[05:46:09] <roe> yes
[05:46:12] *** lunaphyte_ has joined #postfix
[05:46:12] *** lunaphyte_ has joined #postfix
[05:46:19] <gregb> what do you have that's spiking in memory usage at the time?
[05:46:29] <roe> memory isn't spiking
[05:47:02] <gregb> not memory alone
[05:47:10] <gregb> I mean processes that are using memory.
[05:47:29] <gregb> when a process uses memory and there is none available, CPU usage skyrockets.
[05:47:34] <gregb> it's the most common cause.
[05:47:48] <roe> swap isn't getting touched though
[05:47:55] <gregb> you said I/O was good(be careful with graphing utilities, they normally don't show sudden spikes).
[05:48:17] <gregb> swap isn't always going to be touched, that depends on kernel settings and the utility.
[05:48:35] <roe> and free ram stays above 200MB not including cache
[05:48:54] <gregb> then your system is misconfigured from the start.
[05:49:18] <gregb> run a ps aux, and pastebin, when this is happening.
[05:49:31] <gregb> as for memory, you want memory in buffers and cache
[05:50:35] <gregb> do you have a ps aux, during the spike?
[05:50:44] <roe> no
[05:51:04] <gregb> get one, that's the first thing to check.
[05:51:10] <roe> it is hard to do anything on the box during the spike
[05:51:12] <gregb> Second thing, get an output from network
[05:51:19] <roe> I have that graph as well
[05:51:31] <gregb> graphs are not always very accurate
[05:51:36] <gregb> when determining problems for spikes.
[05:51:57] <roe> network throughput are counters, so that is completely accurate
[05:52:29] <gregb> you want to see how many people are connecting
[05:52:34] <gregb> and what's processing
[05:52:39] <gregb> and compare the 2 at the same time.
[05:52:39] *** nokia3510 has quit IRC
[05:54:00] <lunaphyte_> root
[05:54:17] <lunaphyte_> oh, hah
[05:56:25] *** biggi_mat has joined #postfix
[06:00:31] *** lunaphyte_ has quit IRC
[06:08:55] *** Motoko has joined #postfix
[06:09:09] *** lunaphyte_ has joined #postfix
[06:09:09] *** lunaphyte_ has joined #postfix
[06:09:50] *** nokia3510 has joined #postfix
[06:10:38] *** jimpop has quit IRC
[06:13:52] *** n0sq has quit IRC
[06:21:22] *** morphje has joined #postfix
[06:33:15] *** penrod has quit IRC
[06:33:39] *** jimpop has joined #postfix
[06:33:39] *** jimpop has joined #postfix
[06:34:21] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[06:34:34] <jimpop> back
[06:41:18] *** NorrinRadd has quit IRC
[06:43:02] *** morphje has quit IRC
[06:44:20] *** Chi-Town has joined #postfix
[06:44:20] *** Chi-Town has joined #postfix
[06:45:27] *** morphje has joined #postfix
[06:46:17] *** morphje has quit IRC
[06:53:29] *** penrod has quit IRC
[06:54:22] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[07:01:43] *** krzee has quit IRC
[07:39:11] *** Southron has quit IRC
[07:41:36] *** zorg1 has joined #postfix
[07:48:45] *** penrod has quit IRC
[07:49:20] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[08:07:46] *** penrod has quit IRC
[08:09:21] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[08:32:54] *** koobs has joined #postfix
[08:33:36] *** koobs has quit IRC
[08:33:36] *** koobs has joined #postfix
[08:43:25] *** peter__ has joined #postfix
[08:45:37] <peter__> Hi all.. Just wondering, is there a way to monitor a postfix server for users sending too much outgoing mails via auth sasl smtp accounts? ie. users with hacked accounts sending spam-like mails? I would like to be notified if such a limit is reached. What do you do?
[08:49:20] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix
[08:56:59] *** gerhard7 has joined #postfix
[09:10:59] *** breaker313 has joined #postfix
[09:17:09] *** penrod has quit IRC
[09:24:02] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[09:25:58] *** bezourox has quit IRC
[09:28:04] *** bezourox has joined #postfix
[09:30:22] *** tjikkun_work has joined #postfix
[09:35:38] *** mi has joined #postfix
[09:38:13] *** penrod has quit IRC
[09:39:17] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[09:42:33] *** [diablo] has joined #postfix
[09:42:33] *** [diablo] has joined #postfix
[09:42:38] *** Motoko has quit IRC
[09:43:55] <gregb> peter__, I just implemented a feature on my mail gateway for that.
[09:44:18] <gregb> I use pipe and dspam to filter e-mails leaving my server.
[09:45:35] <gregb> I wrote a wrapper, that pulls the domain name from the sender, and updates a file(/tmp/domaincheck/DOMAIN, in my case.
[09:46:28] <gregb> if they reach over the limit, I signal back to postfix, Sent, so it will stop attempting to process the mail, log it, and exit(never gets sent).
[09:46:36] <gregb> Notification is sent out when limit is reached.
[09:47:10] *** UQlev has joined #postfix
[09:50:40] <peter__> gregb: alrigh nice. so you opted to write the code your self then?
[09:51:20] <peter__> so no such features exists in published/opensource scripts/plugins then
[09:53:37] *** Nido has quit IRC
[09:54:32] *** Nido has joined #postfix
[09:59:46] <sep> peter__, check policyd for postfix.
[10:02:55] *** emgee has quit IRC
[10:05:05] <peter__> sep: nice, looks like it perfect for making the policies that postfix does not support. exactly what i need. do you know if policyd kan notify admins if limits are reached?
[10:05:44] <sep> i do not know.
[10:05:51] <peter__> alright, thanks
[10:14:37] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[10:25:24] *** xxzz has quit IRC
[10:32:54] *** UQlev has quit IRC
[10:38:23] *** emgee has joined #postfix
[10:38:39] *** e-anima has joined #postfix
[10:51:05] *** sdferfx has joined #postfix
[10:54:34] *** krzee has quit IRC
[10:59:30] *** bezourox has quit IRC
[11:02:19] *** sdferfx has left #postfix
[11:03:58] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[11:05:50] *** ojtimsen has joined #postfix
[11:07:14] <ojtimsen> hi - I need to restrict my postfix instance to only accept mails for delivery from authenticated users - can somebody help me how the config smtpd_sender_restrictions should like for this
[11:09:15] *** xxzz has joined #postfix
[11:16:18] <tuxick> got a problem with smtpd_helo_restrictions, authenticated users can't mail because "<sys1.localnet>: Helo command rejected: Host not found;"
[11:16:27] <tuxick> this came a bit unexpected :)
[11:19:32] <tuxick> ah, think i got it
[11:26:54] <tuxick> nope
[11:31:47] <tuxick> ojtimsen: permit_sasl_authenticated :)
[11:33:43] *** penrod has quit IRC
[11:34:15] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[11:43:05] *** penrod has quit IRC
[11:44:15] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[11:49:41] *** Creamz has joined #postfix
[11:51:28] <Creamz> I've got a problem with a email that havent been recived by user. When looking in the mail.log file it says status=sent but further down it says "Queued mail for delivery" has it been sent to their mailserver or is still left at mine?
[11:53:37] <sysmonk> pastebin the logs
[12:01:49] <sysmonk> i didn't ask for one line of log
[12:01:52] <sysmonk> i asked for _logs_
[12:02:17] <sysmonk> which at least means a log file starting from the place where the email is sent, till the end (or the place where the last mention of that email is)
[12:03:15] <Creamz> alright
[12:05:23] *** wdp has joined #postfix
[12:05:23] *** wdp has joined #postfix
[12:32:15] *** eseyman has joined #postfix
[12:56:12] *** mi has quit IRC
[12:59:00] *** krzee has quit IRC
[13:04:28] *** diablo_ has joined #postfix
[13:05:59] *** [diablo] has quit IRC
[13:07:07] *** snearch has joined #postfix
[13:07:55] *** abramart has quit IRC
[13:10:46] *** abramart has joined #postfix
[13:15:07] <tuxick> ok, looks like using smtpd_helo_restrictions blocks not only spam
[13:15:16] <tuxick> but also lots of misconfigured mailservers ;p
[13:15:29] <tuxick> bummer
[13:20:35] *** xxzz has quit IRC
[13:21:06] *** xxzz has joined #postfix
[13:30:08] <ojtimsen> @tuxick: thank you for your reply I already added this parameter to smtpd_sender_restrictions but when I try to send a mail from a faked_e-mail at myDomain dot com to valid_e-mail at myDomain dot com it still gets delivered while faked_e-mail at myDomain dot com is non existent as account
[13:30:10] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[13:30:10] *** krzee has joined #postfix
[13:34:23] <tuxick> "sending from" ?
[13:34:59] <tuxick> how can you authenticate against a nonexisting account?
[13:35:31] <ojtimsen> I know it sounds weired
[13:43:09] *** penrod has quit IRC
[13:44:12] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[13:48:17] *** koobs has quit IRC
[13:53:08] *** rob0 has quit IRC
[13:53:08] *** rob0 has joined #postfix
[13:53:25] *** rob0 has quit IRC
[13:53:25] *** rob0 has joined #postfix
[14:03:56] *** drcode has joined #postfix
[14:04:04] <drcode> hi all
[14:04:17] <drcode> can postfix work with socks5 smtp?
[14:13:29] *** jarr0dsz has joined #postfix
[14:18:20] <patdk-wk> postfix doesn't talk socks, no
[14:19:13] <patdk-wk> dunno what you mean by socks5 smtp, cause socks5 isn't protocol specific
[14:20:53] *** jes-o-ma1 has joined #postfix
[14:21:02] <jes-o-ma1> hi folks
[14:21:16] <jes-o-ma1> how can I disable the creation of maildirsize files?
[14:25:57] <drcode> ok
[14:26:17] <drcode> I wrote php script that using php.inin smtp
[14:26:35] <lunaphyte_> jes-o-ma1: by configuring whatever software creates them to not do so.
[14:26:38] <drcode> my php.inin using postfix
[14:27:01] <drcode> I want to send smtp that is in tor network
[14:27:17] <drcode> so postfix will forward my email to socks5
[14:29:28] <drcode> I have read that I can had some warper?
[14:32:19] *** xxzz has quit IRC
[14:33:41] *** peter__ has quit IRC
[14:36:03] *** Bry8Star has quit IRC
[14:37:52] <jes-o-ma1> lunaphyte_: just for the records. seems to be some virtual_maildir_extended config param which comes from psotfix VDA patch
[14:38:01] *** Bry8Star has joined #postfix
[14:38:17] <lunaphyte_> ah, so that would be the software you'd want to configure then.
[14:38:54] *** jarrod23 has joined #postfix
[14:40:55] *** jarr0dsz has quit IRC
[14:45:55] *** RecQuery_ has quit IRC
[14:48:03] *** RecQuery has joined #postfix
[14:48:03] *** RecQuery has joined #postfix
[14:48:15] *** penrod has quit IRC
[14:49:10] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[14:52:16] <tuxick> strange problem here: authenticated user trying to send a mail to a domain server is secondary mx for, getting "Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table"
[14:52:48] <lunaphyte_> !tell tuxick welcome
[14:52:49] <knoba> tuxick: "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.
[14:52:53] <Dominian> lunaphyte_: You beat me to it
[14:53:12] <lunaphyte_> :)
[14:54:10] *** kisisten has joined #postfix
[14:54:28] <jes-o-ma1> lunaphyte_: yes - I did not knew that this option ain't postfix native
[14:55:21] *** jkfod has joined #postfix
[14:56:17] <wdp> is it possible to do something like pcre:mysql:..?
[14:56:40] <sysmonk> no
[14:57:14] <sysmonk> wdp: but mysql itself has support for some regexp stuff
[14:58:03] *** wimpog has joined #postfix
[14:58:26] <wdp> no idea how that would help in that case
[14:59:48] <wimpog> What is the difference between this line: 250-AUTH=CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN and this line: 250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN ? I understand that it lists the possible authentication types, but one line has the '=' sign, and the other doesn't. Does it mean that CRAM-MD5 is preferred?
[15:00:10] <sysmonk> wdp: well, true
[15:00:30] <sysmonk> wimpog: it's a workaround for broken clients
[15:00:38] <wdp> sysmonk, was just wondering if its possible to use regexp stored in a database within postfix. no then?
[15:00:54] <wimpog> sysmonk: I see. what's the difference between LOGIN and PLAIN auth method?
[15:01:34] <sysmonk> wimpog: read the rfc?
[15:01:35] <sysmonk> wdp: not that i know of
[15:01:41] <wdp> sysmonk, k, ty.
[15:02:05] <wimpog> sysmonk: which one? Please point
[15:02:08] <sysmonk> wdp: dumping it to file from time to time, or using some custom daemon for it, but that's not so easy
[15:02:42] <wdp> sysmonk, doing it like that now (dumping it to file)
[15:02:54] <wdp> sysmonk, thats why i was curious if pcre:mysql would do :)
[15:04:35] *** mi has joined #postfix
[15:05:21] <lunaphyte_> wimpog: the difference is that login should be disabled.
[15:05:52] <lunaphyte_> really, in virtually all cases, you only need/should have plain
[15:05:55] <wimpog> lunaphyte_: right, but I just want to know the difference.
[15:06:28] <wimpog> lunaphyte_: besides I cannot disable it on a server I don't have control over
[15:06:51] <lunaphyte_> the difference is that login was a non standard mech peddled by microsoft that was fortunately finally abandoned.
[15:07:28] <sysmonk> wimpog: the difference is in the way you log in. with plain you say you want plain, server asks for username, you send the username, server asks for password, you send password
[15:07:30] <lunaphyte_> wimpog: how would we know if you have control over the server in question?
[15:07:37] <sysmonk> er, that's for login
[15:07:42] <lunaphyte_> that's login
[15:07:49] <sysmonk> for plain, you just say i want plain, and send the user/pass
[15:08:00] *** nowthatsamatt has joined #postfix
[15:08:04] *** nowthatsamatt has left #postfix
[15:08:10] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: i fixed myself!
[15:08:11] <sysmonk> ;)
[15:08:13] <lunaphyte_> login is user and pass separately, plain is both in the same command
[15:08:18] <lunaphyte_> heh :)
[15:08:24] <wimpog> lunaphyte_: sysmonk thanks!
[15:08:52] <sysmonk> 5$
[15:08:53] <sysmonk> :)
[15:09:50] <sysmonk> wimpog: didn't i say so ?
[15:10:04] <sysmonk> well, i didn't mention base64, as both of them use base64
[15:10:10] <wimpog> sysmonk: sys monk: " with plain you say you want plain, server asks for username, you send the username, server asks for password, you send password"
[15:10:18] <sysmonk> wimpog: read my next line
[15:10:29] <sysmonk> " < sysmonk> er, that's for login"
[15:10:41] <sysmonk> and the next-next line says how plain works
[15:10:57] <wimpog> sysmonk: that's clear!
[15:11:22] <wimpog> sysmonk: so plain is recommended over login?
[15:11:34] <sysmonk> login obsolete
[15:11:47] <sysmonk> overall, plain > login, but plain < anything else :)
[15:12:11] <wimpog> sysmonk: is CRAM-MD5 better than all of the above?
[15:12:19] <sysmonk> in some of way
[15:12:29] <sysmonk> cram-md5 _requires_ you to store plaintext password on the server
[15:12:44] <sysmonk> but the password does NOT go in plaintext over the network
[15:13:00] <sysmonk> your client encodes it with md5 + timestamp+otherbullshit and then trasfers it to the server
[15:13:11] <wimpog> sysmonk: thanks
[15:13:16] <sysmonk> that's better, but only if you believe that the server is very secure and nobody will look at your passwords :)
[15:13:48] <sysmonk> (same goes for any other CRAM-*)
[15:13:52] <thumbs> all my passwords are 'a', so encryption is irrelevant
[15:14:11] <sysmonk> thumbs: in my first official job, all the server passwords were ... 'aa'
[15:14:15] <sysmonk> or 'aaa' or 'aaaa'
[15:14:19] <thumbs> sysmonk: really?
[15:14:22] <sysmonk> yep
[15:14:25] <thumbs> wow
[15:14:30] <sysmonk> it's not me who set up the passwords, just in case :)
[15:14:38] <Dominian> I worked on a Windows Domain years ago that the main domain administrator's account password was "password"
[15:14:39] <thumbs> was it seekwill?
[15:14:47] <sysmonk> there was ONE good password which i still remember
[15:14:57] <sysmonk> and there was another password which was not a+
[15:14:58] <thumbs> seekwill loves to the 'a' password.
[15:15:00] <lunaphyte_> i disagree that plain < anything else
[15:15:04] <sysmonk> the password was 'Dick.'
[15:15:13] <Dominian> lol
[15:15:33] <wimpog> sysmonk: unfortunately, I have to support login :(
[15:15:41] <sysmonk> wimpog: that's fine
[15:15:50] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: in HIS situation, he has CRAM-MD5 PLAIN LOGIn
[15:15:50] <lunaphyte_> why do you have to support login?
[15:16:04] <sysmonk> that already means that the password is stored plaintext on the server
[15:16:15] <sysmonk> so when it is already stored as plaintext, i'd better choose cram rather than plain
[15:16:30] <sysmonk> choosing plain won't secure my password on the server :)
[15:16:44] <Dominian> Or better yet.. don't store the passowrd on the server :
[15:16:46] <Dominian> :P
[15:16:57] <lunaphyte_> there you go
[15:17:05] <sysmonk> Dominian: he said it's not his server and he can't change it
[15:17:15] <Dominian> Then whoever's server it is.. smack them
[15:17:17] <Dominian> then do it anyway.
[15:17:27] <sysmonk> he doesn't have access so can't do it :)
[15:17:34] <sysmonk> but smacking them is a right point of view
[15:17:37] <sysmonk> ;))
[15:17:47] <Dominian> So why are we even having the conversation if its not his server and he can't change it.. and he has no access to it?
[15:17:53] <Dominian> :)
[15:17:56] <lunaphyte_> it FUN!
[15:17:58] <sysmonk> dunno
[15:18:00] <Dominian> hah
[15:18:06] <sysmonk> to generate some traffic ?
[15:18:06] <sysmonk> ;)
[15:18:13] <Dominian> apparently so
[15:18:21] <lunaphyte_> theory always applies! :)
[15:18:32] <Dominian> lunaphyte_: Did you see the question I posed in ##bind a couple of days ago in regards to update-policy ?
[15:18:43] * Dominian found the solution!
[15:18:55] <sysmonk> you started using MICROSOFT DNS SERVER?
[15:18:59] <Dominian> haha no
[15:18:59] <sysmonk> or what is the solution?
[15:19:00] <sysmonk> :)
[15:19:17] <lunaphyte_> yeah, you bragged about finding the answer but REFUSED to tell anyone
[15:19:24] <Dominian> lunaphyte_: lmao
[15:19:24] <sysmonk> haha
[15:19:25] <Dominian> hang on
[15:20:05] <sysmonk> btw, anyone knows if there's an easy way to use nginx + php-fpm running with the PHP uid? something like suphp or whatever
[15:20:21] <Dominian> the first grant statement is equivalent to : update-policy local;
[15:21:04] <Dominian> What I didn't realize is that bind generates a local key for use with nsupdate -l called local-ddns
[15:21:41] <Dominian> and when you have auto-dnssec maintain; its extremely useful, but the issue was trying to find out how to get the same functionality, but using a TSIG key and a remote user using nsupdate to update their DynDNS entry
[15:21:46] <Dominian> and voila!
[15:22:01] <Dominian> lunaphyte_: So now you have the answer
[15:22:04] <Dominian> stop pestering me!
[15:22:39] <Dominian> and it works a charm
[15:23:32] *** D-Boy has quit IRC
[15:24:14] *** D-Boy has joined #postfix
[15:24:20] <Dominian> Great.. I killed the conversation
[15:24:34] <sysmonk> assassin.
[15:24:39] <Dominian> :(
[15:24:42] <sysmonk> exim paid you to do it?
[15:24:50] <Dominian> NEVER
[15:24:58] <sysmonk> qmail then.
[15:25:02] <Dominian> NEVER
[15:25:23] *** Steve_The_Pirate has joined #postfix
[15:25:30] <Dominian> freakin' pirates
[15:25:40] <Nido> r?
[15:27:44] *** jkfod has quit IRC
[15:28:02] <lunaphyte_> WHAT?!
[15:28:08] <lunaphyte_> oh. i must have fallen asleep
[15:28:42] <Dominian> bastard
[15:36:20] <buki> he killed Kenny?
[15:36:36] <Dominian> Yes he did
[15:38:38] *** shal3r has quit IRC
[15:39:53] *** jarrod23 has quit IRC
[15:47:05] <kisisten> trying to send a rar file trough exchange server and getting "Event: Restricted attachment detected" tries changing it to .txt but still it detects the rar file
[15:47:19] <kisisten> thats f-ed
[15:51:57] *** wimpog has quit IRC
[15:52:14] <Dominian> What's throwing the error?
[15:52:18] <Dominian> Exchange?
[15:56:35] <kisisten> Dominian: yeap
[15:57:07] <Dominian> Interseting
[15:57:15] <Dominian> can't say I've seen that message before
[15:57:24] <Dominian> What version of Exchange?
[15:57:26] <Dominian> 2010?
[15:57:40] <Dominian> oh 'that'
[15:57:51] <Dominian> I was going to say either Exchange is doing its own filtering now or there's a scanner on there
[15:57:58] <kisisten> it's an add on to exchnage 2003
[15:58:33] <kisisten> next thing is is to encrypt the file
[16:18:30] *** shal3r has joined #postfix
[16:21:26] *** mi has quit IRC
[16:22:08] *** gongoputch has quit IRC
[16:28:28] *** snearch has quit IRC
[16:30:40] *** Steve_The_Pirate has quit IRC
[16:34:49] *** Guest62540 has joined #postfix
[16:35:46] *** gongoputch has joined #postfix
[16:38:28] *** hobodave has quit IRC
[16:50:32] *** Verilium_ has joined #postfix
[16:50:35] *** Verilium_ has quit IRC
[16:52:15] *** reber has joined #postfix
[16:52:21] <reber> hi there
[16:57:01] <reber> !debug
[17:09:36] *** hever has joined #postfix
[17:13:07] *** Southron has joined #postfix
[17:13:18] *** jkfod has joined #postfix
[17:16:11] *** Steve_The_Pirate has joined #postfix
[17:17:50] *** tjikkun_work has quit IRC
[17:20:27] *** Steve_The_Pirate has quit IRC
[17:25:28] *** ipnoz has quit IRC
[17:25:36] *** wdp_ has joined #postfix
[17:31:42] *** davlefou has quit IRC
[17:41:15] *** p3rror has quit IRC
[17:42:31] *** p3rror has joined #postfix
[17:43:03] *** Tyklol has joined #postfix
[17:43:32] *** Tykling has quit IRC
[17:45:02] *** ipnoz has joined #postfix
[17:45:55] *** Chi-Town has quit IRC
[17:48:55] *** reber has quit IRC
[17:49:17] *** Chi-Town has joined #postfix
[17:55:33] *** Steve_The_Pirate has joined #postfix
[17:56:39] <seekwill> a
[17:56:55] *** diablo_ has quit IRC
[17:58:00] <roe> b
[17:59:37] <kisisten> rob0: the "bind -4" did fix the spamhaus dns issues.
[18:04:15] <patdk-wk> heh?
[18:04:45] <patdk-wk> spamhaus issue?
[18:04:55] <rob0> odd. I did not think it would.
[18:05:15] *** breaker313 has quit IRC
[18:13:13] *** penrod has quit IRC
[18:14:04] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[18:14:05] *** jarr0dsz has joined #postfix
[18:19:56] *** eseyman has quit IRC
[18:26:13] *** sinedeviance has joined #postfix
[18:27:54] <sinedeviance> hi all! I am running postfix with dovecot, sasl/tls, and roundcube. I have virtual domains mapped to a text file and am using Maildir. everything works nicely. I would like to setup an email filter for one user, for example if they get an email from @facebook.com, of the message title has 'Facebook' in it, it gets placed inside a /Facebook folder automatically
[18:28:07] <sinedeviance> is there any way to accomplish this with postfix?
[18:28:34] *** penrod has quit IRC
[18:28:53] <sinedeviance> uh note that 'of' was supposed to be 'or' :\
[18:29:03] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[18:29:30] <tuxick> you could use procmail
[18:29:44] <tuxick> or use dovecots deliver+sieve
[18:31:03] <rob0> local(8) gives you more options that virtual(8) does not have, in cases like this.
[18:31:17] <sinedeviance> tuxick: of those options, which would you say that the easiest/fastest way would be?
[18:31:48] <sinedeviance> rob0: you mean local users instead of virtual users? i am using local unix users
[18:32:16] <rob0> Not sure that either would be easy or fast. Procmail requires strong understanding of regular expressions. Sieve is more modern, probably a better choice.
[18:32:28] <sinedeviance> hmm... okay
[18:32:39] <roe> but requires using the dovecot LDA
[18:33:09] <rob0> if using system users, a .forward file can invoke the LDA only for that user.
[18:33:24] <rob0> same as you would do for procmail in fact
[18:34:00] <sinedeviance> rob0: right. so i'd need .forward files in each user's Maildir that required filtering, yes?
[18:34:10] <rob0> $HOME
[18:34:21] <sinedeviance> ahh so each user's ~/ ?
[18:35:11] <sinedeviance> uh... okay, after adding a .forward file for a user, does postfix need to be restarted or will a reload be sufficient? (i've noticed that i have to restart it when i add new users to the system for them to get indexed)
[18:35:28] <rob0> it's kind of hard to figure out if you don't have a Unix/Sendmail background, but it is all documented in local(8) and aliases(5).
[18:36:00] <rob0> the .forward file is read when mail is delivered
[18:36:21] <rob0> local(8) is not a persistent daemon process
[18:36:43] <sinedeviance> okay
[18:36:45] <sinedeviance> thanks!
[18:36:51] <rob0> see also:
[18:36:57] <rob0> !recipient_delimiter
[18:36:58] <knoba> rob0: "recipient_delimiter" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: The separator between user names and address extensions (user+foo). See canonical(5), local(8), relocated(5) and virtual(5) for the effects this has on aliases, canonical, virtual, relocated and on .forward file lookups. Basically, the software tries user+foo and .forward+foo before trying user and .forward.
[18:37:43] <sinedeviance> oh, and btw. even if I am using Maildir, if I'm writing a Sieve script, would I use fileinto 'INBOX.junk' (as an example) or would it be like 'Maildir/junk' ?
[18:37:53] <rob0> (I don't recommend "+" because clueless web programmers decided you should not have a + in an email address. "-" or "_" or "." is good.)
[18:38:41] <patdk-wk> I'm suprised those others work
[18:38:49] * rob0 has not used Sieve, check the documentation for your sieve implementation (I think it is a dovecot plugin)
[18:38:50] <patdk-wk> hell, I have run into websites that don't support .
[18:39:07] <sinedeviance> rob0: alright. well thanks a lot, you've been real helpful :D
[18:39:07] <rob0> really? Where, do yo recall?
[18:39:11] <roe> I hate that gmail ignores .
[18:39:29] <patdk-wk> can't remember
[18:39:35] <roe> foo.bar@gmail and foobar@gmail is the same account
[18:39:41] <patdk-wk> yep
[18:39:45] <roe> retarded
[18:39:48] <rob0> yeah, I had heard that too
[18:39:51] <sinedeviance> ugh yeah i somehow got on gmail's 'spam' list when i was running citadel. STILL waiting for that to clear.
[18:39:51] <patdk-wk> foo....bar...
[18:39:55] *** p3rror has quit IRC
[18:40:06] <patdk-wk> citadel?
[18:40:13] <sinedeviance> yeah
[18:41:11] <sinedeviance> but, it's insecure and doesn't support virtual domains
[18:41:14] * patdk-wk notes he can't locate it anywhere
[18:41:35] <sinedeviance> which is why i switched to postfix/dovecot/sasl/tls
[18:41:47] <sinedeviance> oh and citadel is awfully slow too
[18:41:55] <sinedeviance> my new server spools mail much faster
[18:42:13] <patdk-wk> hmm, it uses spamass and clamav
[18:42:23] <patdk-wk> how will using postfix instead help you?
[18:42:26] <sinedeviance> CAN use them. it's not config'd out of the box
[18:42:37] <patdk-wk> well, same with postfix
[18:42:51] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: i know, but i'm already using spamass, amavis, clamd
[18:43:06] <sinedeviance> postfix is config'd for them and they work in /var/log/mail.log
[18:43:46] <sinedeviance> if i could just get filters figured out i'd be all set
[18:45:32] <patdk-wk> yuk, it stored all email inside db files, sleepycat, berkeley db, or whatever they want to call it now
[18:46:08] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: it's really slow. the only upside is that the webmail isn't bad (but i never used it) and it was very easy to add mail filters
[18:46:36] <sinedeviance> it also had some nice collab features that our company will never use
[18:46:57] <sinedeviance> all i needed was good email + webmail. but i have that now
[18:48:05] <rob0> Does citadel include the httpd as well? Seems like it does everything else. (Or, claims to!)
[18:49:24] <patdk-wk> nope :)
[18:49:32] <rob0> There is much to be said for the Unix philosophy of small tools that do one thing well, and interact with other tools in a standard way.
[18:49:41] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: no, it does
[18:49:41] *** koshie has quit IRC
[18:49:48] <sinedeviance> citadel does not require any webserver
[18:49:56] <patdk-wk> oh? I just saw the part it talks about apache,lighttpd,nginx, ...
[18:49:59] <sinedeviance> it includes apache2 built in, but can work with other webservers
[18:50:12] <rob0> Postfix is not a small tool, but it is a collection of them.
[18:50:17] * patdk-wk perfers the, build a stack method
[18:50:24] <patdk-wk> then if something breaks you know where to look
[18:50:29] <patdk-wk> instead of the microsoft black box method
[18:50:30] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: yeah, you're only supposed to use the inbuilt web server as a last resort
[18:50:44] <rob0> yes, citadel looks way too ambitious to me.
[18:51:07] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk perfers the, build a stack method <-- after building one that works, so do i :D
[18:51:07] <lunaphyte> black boxes are fine, as long as you're the one who built it :)
[18:51:24] <sinedeviance> it took me ages to get it all figured out, but now i think i could do it again easily
[18:51:24] <patdk-wk> lunaphyte then it's a transparent box :)
[18:51:38] *** zorg1 has quit IRC
[18:51:41] <patdk-wk> or glass box :)
[18:51:51] <sinedeviance> i think i'm gonna use procmail
[18:51:53] <rob0> It's open source and runs on Unix/Linux, so it may improve over time. But I still think it is too ambitious.
[18:52:16] <sinedeviance> procmail is already installed on the system and running. do i need to add something in main.cf or will procmail filter automatically?
[18:52:19] <roe> sinedeviance, the biggest problem with procmail is good luck getting your users to use it
[18:52:35] <lunaphyte> !procmail
[18:52:35] * patdk-wk likes sieve
[18:52:35] <knoba> lunaphyte: "procmail" : a frequently used mail filter for e.g. distributing mails to different folders (like for mailing lists). See http://www.procmail.org/
[18:52:41] <patdk-wk> but the same issue applies
[18:52:42] <rob0> $EDITOR ~/.procmailrc
[18:52:48] *** mi has joined #postfix
[18:52:53] <tuxick> i gave my users squirrelmail with the sieve plugin
[18:52:53] <lunaphyte> oh, i thought that factoid was more disparaging
[18:52:57] <patdk-wk> the only *easy* way to users to use anything like that, is a good webmail that supports rules filtering
[18:53:01] <sinedeviance> roe: right but if i'm doing the administration then i'd be the only one using it
[18:53:10] <tuxick> some manage to scew that up, but in general it does the job
[18:53:14] <rob0> echo "|procmail <options>" > ~/.forward
[18:53:16] *** mi has quit IRC
[18:53:27] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: do you know of any? i
[18:53:34] <sinedeviance> i'm* using roundcube now
[18:53:39] <patdk-wk> horde does it
[18:53:45] <patdk-wk> I thought roundcube did, recently
[18:54:00] <sinedeviance> i'd like to run horde actually, but it doesn't seem to work with system users, only virtual in a mysql db
[18:54:03] <sinedeviance> that wont work
[18:54:06] <lunaphyte> roundcube had some stuff in trac for adding sieve support.
[18:54:13] <sinedeviance> i really DON'T want to use virtual users
[18:54:14] <lunaphyte> i haven't looked in some time though. maybe it made it in
[18:54:24] <lunaphyte> i much prefer virtual over local
[18:54:31] <patdk-wk> why would horde care about system vs virtual?
[18:54:36] <rob0> horde won't work without mysql?
[18:54:44] <patdk-wk> rob0, not really, no
[18:54:52] <patdk-wk> technically it does, but good luck :)
[18:54:55] <tuxick> really? never noticed
[18:55:09] *** p3rror has joined #postfix
[18:55:50] <patdk-wk> I like horde, but I will agree it's not user friendly
[18:56:00] <patdk-wk> though, horde4 is much better
[18:56:06] <seekwill> Zimbra!
[18:56:13] <lunaphyte> blackbox...
[18:56:16] <lunaphyte> both of em
[18:56:27] <patdk-wk> what horde?
[18:56:28] <sinedeviance> but sieve REQUIRES virtual users. is that right?
[18:56:42] <patdk-wk> why would sieve require virtual users?
[18:56:43] <lunaphyte> well, maybe semi opaque box, i suppose
[18:56:55] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: oh, i thought someone said it did further up
[18:57:05] <sinedeviance> okay so sieve works fine with system users?
[18:57:11] <lunaphyte> !tell sinedeviance tias
[18:57:12] <knoba> sinedeviance: "tias" : Try It And See
[18:57:18] <patdk-wk> it should
[18:57:20] <sinedeviance> heh, okay
[18:57:24] <patdk-wk> I never tried it, but it's no different
[18:57:31] <sinedeviance> well i found a sieve roundcube plugin. lets see if it works
[18:57:36] <patdk-wk> well, let me say
[18:57:40] <patdk-wk> using *dovecot sieve*
[18:59:31] <sinedeviance> am i the only person that thinks email servers are way too difficult to setup? just curious
[18:59:40] <lunaphyte> what do you mean?
[18:59:41] <patdk-wk> heh
[18:59:43] <lunaphyte> !wizard
[18:59:44] <knoba> lunaphyte: "wizard" : there is no configuration wizard for postfix. if you are looking to be handheld through the configuration process, you might consider that postfix may not be the best choice. however, the docs that ship with postfix are complete, and well-written. see both !basic and !examples for far more insight and value than a wizard could ever hope to provide. also see !distro
[18:59:54] <lunaphyte> hmm. was that it?
[18:59:56] <lunaphyte> oh
[18:59:56] <patdk-wk> na he wants the other one
[18:59:59] <lunaphyte> !easy
[18:59:59] <knoba> lunaphyte: "easy" : unfortunately, because there are some folks who invest the time and effort to understand things, it makes emailing very easy for lots of other people, which seems to foster the notion that it couldn't possibly be any more complex than clicking send. this, of course, is not the case. as with most things, you get what you put in. also see !maintain
[19:00:23] <sinedeviance> ~maintain
[19:00:26] <patdk-wk> na
[19:00:30] <lunaphyte> it's not mail server that are "difficult" to set up. it's *email* itself that is difficult
[19:00:32] <sinedeviance> !maintain
[19:00:33] <knoba> sinedeviance: "maintain" : don't be fooled into thinking that if it were just more simple to set up this mail server, that would make all the difference . the truth is that the initial installation and configuration of a mail server is as simple or complex as you want it to be, and more importantly, is going to consume nowhere near as much time as the daily care and feeding.
[19:01:08] <sinedeviance> ^i dont agree
[19:01:13] <patdk-wk> heh?
[19:01:15] <lunaphyte> those are some of my favorite factoids :)
[19:01:23] <patdk-wk> agree with what?
[19:01:31] <sinedeviance> it wasn't THAT difficult to build this email server honestly, but even after it's running i haven't had to touch it
[19:01:44] <lunaphyte> yikes
[19:01:46] <sinedeviance> it 'just works'
[19:01:53] <lunaphyte> until it doesn't
[19:01:56] <patdk-wk> my last small setup, took me 3-4hours to do?
[19:02:05] <patdk-wk> and I had all my configs and stuff already before hand
[19:02:07] <lunaphyte> and then you realize you should have been paying more attention to it
[19:02:14] <patdk-wk> my last larger system, took me a good 3 weeks
[19:02:15] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: it took me about 8 hours to build this server from scratch
[19:02:19] <patdk-wk> and I spend hours a day on them
[19:02:25] <rob0> Running your own mail server ties you down in a lot of ways. Got to keep on top of spam developments, got to watch for and react to trouble ...
[19:02:32] <patdk-wk> I build a server in <10min
[19:02:39] <patdk-wk> after that it's all setup
[19:02:51] <sinedeviance> rob0: i thought that's what spamassassin and clamd were for?
[19:03:10] <patdk-wk> I'm running my own rbl's and other things
[19:03:38] <patdk-wk> spamass + clamav might get you 90% of junk cleaned
[19:03:46] <patdk-wk> but when your dealing with millions of emails, 90% isn't good enough
[19:04:15] <patdk-wk> but that 90% on a home system, means what, 2-5 junks per week?
[19:04:21] <patdk-wk> might be missed
[19:04:43] <sinedeviance> patdk-wk: gotcha.
[19:05:10] <sinedeviance> well that's an upside for us i guess. this email server is for my company (as in, i own it) and we only have a few people in the com[any
[19:05:18] <sinedeviance> in ten years it might be a problem, but for now we're okay
[19:09:32] *** chadmaynard has quit IRC
[19:09:38] <patdk-wk> today is the first day of my new email server in full production :)
[19:09:43] *** mal1 has joined #postfix
[19:09:47] <patdk-wk> it's at like 20% cpu load
[19:09:54] <lunaphyte> in ten years hopefully email won't be around anymore
[19:10:05] <patdk-wk> lunaphyte, it will be
[19:10:15] <patdk-wk> ipv4 will probably still be around
[19:10:44] <patdk-wk> think everyone is going leave email and use facebook/twitter instead?
[19:14:47] <lunaphyte> oh god no, i hope not. that would be worse.
[19:15:15] <lunaphyte> being supplanted by something like xmpp would be neat though
[19:17:58] *** mal1 has quit IRC
[19:18:33] *** Motoko has joined #postfix
[19:18:39] *** Steve_The_Pirate has quit IRC
[19:20:03] <Chi-Town> will strict rejecting based on recipient table get me blacklisted?
[19:20:14] <lunaphyte> heavens no
[19:20:18] <Chi-Town> good
[19:20:26] <rob0> how would rejecting cause a blacklist entry?
[19:20:35] <lunaphyte> it's the opposite that would be more likely
[19:20:41] <Chi-Town> who knows. i know blacklisting is something to watch-out for
[19:20:56] <rob0> NOT rejecting, and sending backscatter, can get you listed.
[19:20:59] <patdk-wk> normally people only blacklist based on stuff they receive
[19:21:07] <patdk-wk> if your not sending, that shouldn't be an issue
[19:21:39] *** gongoputch has quit IRC
[19:22:41] <Chi-Town> i have to figure out how to get assign email addresses to unix accounts now
[19:23:00] <Chi-Town> this factoid has eluded me somehow
[19:23:21] <lunaphyte> what portions of the documentation have you read so far?
[19:23:29] <adaptr> 0.1%
[19:23:36] <adaptr> ICANHAZEMAIL?!
[19:23:47] <Chi-Town> thanks for the assumptions
[19:24:07] <Chi-Town> quite a bit. spending most days reading it since about Sunday
[19:24:15] <lunaphyte> oh, good.
[19:24:15] <Chi-Town> guess that's when I started
[19:24:21] *** Gatto has joined #postfix
[19:24:50] <rob0> um, maybe you are talking about the "virtual ALIAS example" in:
[19:24:54] <rob0> !virtual
[19:25:38] <rob0> otherwise, adding a system user (see your OS documentation) adds that user to every @$mydestination domain.
[19:25:43] <Chi-Town> that sounds right. so /etc/aliases is not a good place to do it?
[19:25:56] <rob0> !alias_maps
[19:25:56] <knoba> rob0: "alias_maps" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: The alias databases that are used for local(8) delivery. See aliases(5) for syntax details.
[19:25:59] <rob0> !basic
[19:26:13] <lunaphyte> /etc/aliases is ok, sure. why, are you having problems?
[19:27:29] <Chi-Town> well just don't know how to do it, which you've just given two ways. setup prelimarily works right now, it seems, but can't test with my desired email addresses yet
[19:27:41] <lunaphyte> oh. why not?
[19:27:49] <patdk-wk> do you know what *type* of users your using?
[19:28:33] <rob0> do you know what type of pronouns you're using? ;)
[19:28:34] *** m1nish has quit IRC
[19:28:40] <rob0> scnr
[19:28:41] <Chi-Town> can't because 1) the addresses and unix names don't match and 2) the unix account names are not in the recipient table
[19:28:45] <patdk-wk> rob0, nope
[19:29:00] <lunaphyte> there was a funny oatmeal about that
[19:30:07] *** nowthatsamatt has joined #postfix
[19:30:16] <rob0> Other than aliases(5), the local_recipient_maps are maintained automatically by the OS
[19:30:25] <Chi-Town> patdk-wk: not sure what you mean. not users yet... since nothing matches yet..
[19:30:28] <rob0> unless you did something to change that of course
[19:30:43] <Chi-Town> no* users yet
[19:31:05] <rob0> so, add users or aliases or both
[19:31:54] *** nowthatsamatt has left #postfix
[19:32:18] <patdk-wk> how do you not have users?
[19:32:31] <patdk-wk> you have to have users, before you can link users to email addresses
[19:32:33] <lunaphyte> probably backordered
[19:32:44] <patdk-wk> do you have system users? or virtual users? ghost users?
[19:32:45] <lunaphyte> i heard there's been a shortage recently
[19:32:45] <Chi-Town> rob0: yeah, local_recipients_maps is not default
[19:34:22] <Chi-Town> patdk-wk: still don't know you mean. unix users are unix users. assuming there's some differientator you're looking for, what is it?
[19:34:57] <Chi-Town> system users
[19:36:13] <patdk-wk> hmm, maybe we just need to start at the beginning, like normal
[19:36:17] <patdk-wk> postconf -n?
[19:36:26] <patdk-wk> and probably your alias file
[19:42:55] *** Gatto has quit IRC
[19:43:53] <Chi-Town> "The name is a local address (no domain part). Use double quotes when the name contains any special charac‐ ters such as whitespace, `#', `:', or `@'.
[19:43:56] <Chi-Town> "
[19:44:02] <Chi-Town> from man 5 aliases
[19:44:27] <Chi-Town> can't figure out the syntax. it says "no domain part" but then says include "@" in quotations.
[19:44:48] <Chi-Town> why would there be an @ if no domains are allowed
[19:45:41] <Chi-Town> goal: send mail from user at domain dot com to the inbox of user2
[19:45:54] <Chi-Town> send mail to*** user at domain dot com
[19:45:58] *** kreign has joined #postfix
[19:46:23] <rob0> An address localpart can contain ANY printable ASCII character, including "@"
[19:48:38] <Chi-Town> gotcha
[19:50:27] <rob0> I made one "Eat @ Joe's" at example dot org just for fun. Ended up finding a nasty bug in the Postfix sqlite code!
[19:51:00] <Chosi> i was expection an "...took an arrow to the knee" from that url.
[19:51:05] <Chosi> *expecting
[19:51:17] <rob0> heh
[19:51:35] *** hever has quit IRC
[19:52:26] <Dominian> :)
[19:52:39] <Dominian> I stil lhave no freakin' clue what that 'took an arrow to the knee' is about
[19:52:55] <patdk-wk> someone doesn't live on 4chan
[19:52:57] <rob0> all I know is it's a meme
[19:53:11] <rob0> All your meme are belong to us.
[19:53:28] *** lxsameer has joined #postfix
[19:53:30] <adaptr> can haz meme ?
[19:53:44] <rob0> Somebody set up us the meme.
[19:53:46] <lxsameer> how should i add users to postfix using postgres ?
[19:54:02] <patdk-wk> lxsameer, anyway you feel like?
[19:54:19] <rob0> lxsameer, with great care and perfect technique.
[19:54:22] <Chi-Town> Chosi: that's that video game meme?
[19:54:32] <Chosi> that one awful one, yes
[19:54:34] <lxsameer> patdk-wk: i mean, i don't know the structure and stuff like that
[19:54:34] <rob0> Only using the finest in hand-crafted ASCII.
[19:54:35] <Chosi> among others
[19:55:12] <Chi-Town> skyrim right?
[19:56:00] <lxsameer> hmmm i mean what table should i create ? what columns ?
[19:56:18] <Dominian> lxsameer: there are a ton of tutorials on the net that state the format of the tables..
[19:56:24] <Dominian> but you can format the table anyway you like
[19:56:29] <Dominian> then yuo write the queries you need to make it 'work'
[19:56:48] <lxsameer> Dominian: i get it , thanks man
[19:56:56] <rob0> I didn't like any of the schemas I found, so I wrote my own.
[19:57:08] <rob0> and someone forked it for pgsql!
[19:58:30] *** penrod has quit IRC
[19:59:01] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[19:59:07] <thumbs> damn spiceman
[19:59:20] <thumbs> he stole rob's spotlight!
[20:00:25] <rob0> !seen spiceman
[20:00:26] <knoba> rob0: spiceman was last seen in #postfix 1 week, 0 days, 11 hours, 29 minutes, and 19 seconds ago: <SpiceMan> rob0_: ping
[20:00:42] <rob0> oh damn, did I answer that?
[20:01:06] <rob0> I don't recall seeing it.
[20:01:48] <rob0> Actually I am rewriting my tutorial using a lot of his suggestions.
[20:06:02] *** hever has joined #postfix
[20:07:55] *** penrod has quit IRC
[20:09:00] *** penrod has joined #postfix
[20:09:20] *** wdp_ has quit IRC
[20:13:50] *** davlefou has joined #postfix
[20:14:18] *** davlefou has quit IRC
[20:14:18] *** davlefou has joined #postfix
[20:18:39] *** jkfod has quit IRC
[20:19:21] <patdk-wk> !seen patdk-wk
[20:19:21] <knoba> patdk-wk: patdk-wk was last seen in #postfix 25 minutes and 19 seconds ago: <patdk-wk> lxsameer, anyway you feel like?
[20:20:44] *** hobodave has joined #postfix
[20:25:33] *** jkfod has joined #postfix
[20:28:00] <Chi-Town> "postfix/smtpd: fatal: non-null host address bits in "192.168.0.1/24", perhaps you should use "192.168.0.0/24" instead"
[20:28:06] <Chi-Town> kinda shocked that's a fatal error
[20:31:51] <lunaphyte> Rovanion: any particular reason you're using cyrus and not dovecot for sasl?
[20:35:47] <Dominian> Chi-Town: well it makes sense to me
[20:35:59] <Dominian> If you want to sepcifcy "one" address just use 192.168.0.1
[20:36:13] <Dominian> If you want to use CIDR notation it should be /32
[20:37:29] <rob0> Postfix is strict about CIDR. Be equally surprised that other software is less strict and will use a hybrid of CIDR+DWIM notation.
[20:38:04] <lunaphyte> it sort of depends on the context.
[20:39:00] <Dominian> to me.. 192.168.0.1/24 means you're truing to a class C subnet with 192.168.0.1 as the 'subnet'
[20:39:29] <rob0> ip addr add 192.168.0.1/24 dev eth0 # that says you want to bind 192.168.0.1 on eth0 AND set up a kernel ARP route to 192.168.0.0/24 via eth0.
[20:40:09] <lunaphyte> in the case where you're specifying a network, it doesn't make sense to use an address within the space that isn't the network address, because it could result in a erroneous inference - whereas if you are setting an address [for a particular interface for example], 192.168.0.1/24 makes sense just fine
[20:41:02] <Dominian> apparently postfix didn't like it
[20:41:06] <rob0> well, what does NOT make sense to me is using 192.168.0.0/23 in general :) -- too many routers and off-the-shelf stuff in that netspace :)
[20:41:07] <Dominian> just sayin'
[20:41:13] *** voldial has quit IRC
[20:41:23] <lunaphyte> right, because it's in the former context.
[20:46:19] <Rovanion> lunaphyte: Not that I know of, how so?
[20:57:07] *** jwing has quit IRC
[20:59:35] *** Rovanion is now known as RovAway
[21:05:30] *** inf_l00p has quit IRC
[21:05:48] *** inf_l00p has joined #postfix
[21:13:11] *** cokegen has joined #postfix
[21:13:33] *** jwing has joined #postfix
[21:13:34] *** Southron has quit IRC
[21:13:47] <cokegen> ih
[21:13:56] <jimpop> olleh
[21:14:06] *** inf_l00p has quit IRC
[21:15:29] *** cokegen has quit IRC
[21:16:11] *** inf_l00p has joined #postfix
[21:16:33] *** jwing has quit IRC
[21:17:21] *** CaptObviousman has joined #postfix
[21:17:30] *** CaptObviousman has quit IRC
[21:17:30] *** CaptObviousman has joined #postfix
[21:18:40] *** CaptObviousman has left #postfix
[21:19:19] *** gongoputch has joined #postfix
[21:21:33] *** snearch has joined #postfix
[21:28:45] *** jkfod has quit IRC
[21:30:19] *** jkfod has joined #postfix
[21:32:58] *** VaNNi has quit IRC
[21:33:19] *** localhost has quit IRC
[21:33:23] *** VaNNi has joined #postfix
[21:34:23] *** VaNNi has quit IRC
[21:34:38] *** localhost has joined #postfix
[21:35:08] *** VaNNi has joined #postfix
[21:37:10] *** hobodave has quit IRC
[21:40:12] *** sinedeviance has quit IRC
[21:40:54] *** jwing has joined #postfix
[21:44:44] *** sinedeviance has joined #postfix
[21:45:24] <sinedeviance> hey all, i got sieve filtering working. thanks again for all the help! :D
[21:47:05] *** VaNNi has quit IRC
[21:50:42] *** sinedeviance has left #postfix
[21:56:57] *** Guest62540 has quit IRC
[21:57:54] *** lxsameer has left #postfix
[22:02:31] *** gerhard7 has quit IRC
[22:03:52] *** drcode has quit IRC
[22:05:10] *** sacredchao has quit IRC
[22:05:28] *** hobodave has joined #postfix
[22:07:06] *** sacredchao has joined #postfix
[22:08:23] *** Steve_The_Pirate has joined #postfix
[22:09:00] *** drcode has joined #postfix
[22:22:05] <Chi-Town> "because it could result in a erroneous inference" -- don't think so. only match the bits that are marked in the mask as network, and it comes out correct
[22:22:54] <Chi-Town> Dominian: the subnet is determined by the mask. /24. so only match the first 24 bits. which would be 192.168.0.0
[22:23:46] * Chi-Town trying to get a mua that uses the maildir i've set dovecot to use
[22:24:13] <Chi-Town> they seem to want to be their own mda (mutt)
[22:25:36] <rob0> mutt can be an imap client, or even better, run imap through ssh or directly on the server.
[22:25:41] <Chi-Town> maybe its supposed to be one or the other? mua that pulls from spool or mda that pulls from spool?
[22:26:18] <rob0> set tunnel="MAILDIR=~/Mail/ /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap" # is what I use
[22:26:26] <Chi-Town> seems like mutt wants me to put the imap password in a plaintext config file
[22:27:42] <rob0> mailboxes imap://localhost/
[22:27:57] <Chi-Town> rob0: so ~/Mail is what you have dovecot set to deliver mail to also?
[22:30:03] <rob0> I don't use dovecot for delivery, but indeed, there wouldn't be much point in reading mail from somewhere other than where mail is delivered.
[22:30:30] *** Bry8Star has quit IRC
[22:30:30] <Chi-Town> that's the think. seems like it only reads from spool or imap
[22:30:35] <Chi-Town> the thing*
[22:30:58] <Chi-Town> would like it if it read from the dir the mda put it in
[22:31:02] <rob0> it will do maildir if you want
[22:31:25] <rob0> I prefer imap
[22:32:42] <Chi-Town> this mutt documentation seems to be non-existent
[22:33:28] <Chi-Town> ok... it will read from maildir... where do i set that? sorry for the mutt questions...
[22:34:53] <rob0> hmm, I hit F1 in mine and get a huge readme
[22:34:56] *** gongoputch has quit IRC
[22:35:14] <rob0> I don't know much mutt, but they do have a channel.
[22:35:48] <Chi-Town> ok. will try those
[22:37:27] <Chi-Town> opinion wise, mutt versus alpine?
[22:45:49] <jimpop> alpine skiing is good, but sitting at home with a mutt is more rewarding.
[22:49:12] *** Steve_The_Pirate has quit IRC
[22:52:26] *** jwing has quit IRC
[22:52:52] <rob0> Last I looked at alpine, I was bewildered and unable to make it do what I needed. Like the Alps. OTOH mutt has been faithful and loyal. Like a mutt.
[23:03:35] *** ciklid has joined #postfix
[23:05:42] *** wsmsg has quit IRC
[23:07:36] <kreign> rob0, but but alpine has the same configuration options as pine, more or less.
[23:07:56] *** todd_dsm has quit IRC
[23:09:00] *** mi has joined #postfix
[23:10:15] *** hever has quit IRC
[23:22:44] *** hever has joined #postfix
[23:23:38] *** hever has quit IRC
[23:24:46] *** jkfod has quit IRC
[23:27:13] *** kisisten has quit IRC
[23:46:08] <Chi-Town> mutt seems broken. no one in #mutt is able to stop mutt from asking me to create a spoolfile, that as far as i can tell, i don't need
[23:46:28] <kreign> I think most people use biff instead of mutt?
[23:47:08] <rob0> huh? biff and mutt are very different
[23:47:24] <kreign> *shrug* i've used neither. :P
[23:47:42] <kreign> I've read more mail with less than I have with pretty much any actual mua, unfortunately. :P
[23:48:10] <rob0> biff  (1) - be notified if mail arrives and who it is from
[23:48:16] <rob0> biff is not a MUA
[23:54:59] *** Steve_The_Pirate has joined #postfix
[23:55:24] *** Steve_The_Pirate has quit IRC