October 4, 2013 
< | 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 | 31 | >
October 4, 2013 [00:05:28] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[00:05:49] *** davlefou has joined #postfix[00:07:18] *** exos has joined #postfix[00:08:20] *** chillmore has joined #postfix[00:09:39] <chillmore> hi[00:10:08] *** exos_ has quit IRC[00:11:23] *** freezey has quit IRC[00:11:49] *** robinho86 has quit IRC[00:11:52] <chillmore> i'm trying to use a "after-queue content filter" for postfix. I'm a little bit confused about the sendmail "thing" do I always need to send the filtered mail to sendmail even if I use dovecot via lmtp behind postfix?[00:12:47] *** riceandbeans has left #postfix[00:14:57] <rob0> The more usual way to do it is for the mail to return to Postfix via SMTP. Usually the alias expansion happens in the second time through Postfix. In theory, if you get everything done in the MTA on the first pass, you don't need that second pass.[00:15:53] <rob0> That's just not a common, well-supported way to do it.[00:16:19] *** gu1lle_ has joined #postfix[00:16:29] <rob0> (and it's harder than I made it sound)[00:18:20] *** MaximusColourum has quit IRC[00:20:50] <chillmore> ok but how can I send the mail to dovecot instead ?[00:21:38] *** joules has quit IRC[00:23:17] *** MaximusColourum has joined #postfix[00:23:38] <rob0> I guess you'd unset content_filter, use the filter as transport for your domain[s] via some kind of transport(5) setting, and have the filter pass the mail out to Dovecot LMTP.[00:24:09] *** MaximusColourum has quit IRC[00:39:03] *** loompek has joined #postfix[00:39:14] *** loompek has quit IRC[00:39:14] *** loompek has joined #postfix[00:39:24] *** loompek has left #postfix[00:39:24] *** loompek has joined #postfix[00:48:36] *** davlefou has quit IRC[00:50:31] *** nutron has joined #postfix[00:51:41] *** exos_ has joined #postfix[00:52:33] *** exos has quit IRC[00:58:07] *** dylukes has joined #postfix[00:59:53] *** gu1lle_ has quit IRC[01:00:21] *** dylukes has quit IRC[01:01:08] *** davlefou has joined #postfix[01:10:44] *** chillmore has left #postfix[01:12:39] *** redspike_ has quit IRC[01:18:58] *** winux has quit IRC[01:21:26] *** steven4455 has quit IRC[01:26:41] *** exos_ has quit IRC[01:28:32] *** exos has joined #postfix[01:35:23] *** exos_ has joined #postfix[01:37:48] *** exos has quit IRC[01:41:18] *** exos_ has quit IRC[01:42:44] *** exos has joined #postfix[01:46:13] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[01:49:18] *** davlefou has quit IRC[01:56:13] *** exos_ has joined #postfix[01:58:51] *** exos has quit IRC[02:12:47] *** redspike has joined #postfix[02:23:32] *** twb has joined #postfix[02:25:15] *** hallamigo has quit IRC[02:27:03] *** winux has joined #postfix[02:32:09] *** j4jackj has joined #postfix[02:32:18] <j4jackj> I'm in trouble with Postfix on FreeBSD.[02:33:15] <thumbs> !tell j4jackj welcome[02:33:15] <knoba> j4jackj: "welcome" : Welcome to #postfix! If you're new here, or to IRC, first read the channel topic (/topic). It has important instructions on how to ask good questions. You will get more and better help if you follow those instructions. Good Luck![02:33:52] <j4jackj> thumbs: that was unnecessary[02:34:13] <thumbs> j4jackj: no, it is. You must read the /topic to acquire help here.[02:34:15] <j4jackj> So my trouble is, it's not delivering mail locally to mailboxes, but remote delivery is fine.[02:34:21] <thumbs> j4jackj: see the /topic[02:34:28] <j4jackj> thumbs: therefore, you sucksors.[02:34:39] <thumbs> not a great start for you.[02:35:34] <lunaphyte> !tell j4jackj getting_help[02:35:35] <knoba> j4jackj: "getting_help" : before asking your question, provide a pastebin which includes relevant log data and your config. see !pastebin, !relevant_logs and !showconfig for instructions on doing this.[02:35:48] <lunaphyte> not sure what on earth "that was unnecessary" would mean[02:35:56] <j4jackj> http://sprunge.us/daiM[02:36:19] <j4jackj> I HATE THE INTERNET[02:36:47] <j4jackj> =/win 25[02:36:56] <lunaphyte> please leave out the commentary[02:37:14] <j4jackj> Oh whatever[02:37:23] <lunaphyte> jack-opti-bsd.localdomain host not found.[02:37:26] <lunaphyte> so just fix that[02:37:38] <j4jackj> hurr durr[02:37:45] <lunaphyte> a better idea would be to use regular dns names instead of made up ones.[02:38:17] <lunaphyte> what happens when you fix that broken hostname? does the error go away?[02:38:36] <j4jackj> I've fixed it so far...[02:38:40] <j4jackj> Anyway.[02:38:58] <j4jackj> I'll add jack-opti-bsd.umbrellix.tk. to the umbrellix.tk. zone for you then. :)[02:39:32] <j4jackj> Altho, this machine is known on the web as www.umbrellix.tk, even though it's my desktop[02:44:32] <j4jackj> Anyway.[02:48:10] <j4jackj> I'm now having /etc/aliases trouble.[02:49:37] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[02:52:29] <j4jackj> Now I just need to check my maildir.[03:02:28] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[03:17:38] *** MaximusColourum has joined #postfix[03:21:14] *** j4jackj has quit IRC[03:21:59] *** j4jackj has joined #postfix[03:47:03] *** grundy has joined #postfix[03:50:02] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[04:01:13] *** MaximusColourum has quit IRC[04:03:26] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[04:42:20] *** Guest02377-50092 has joined #postfix[04:44:53] *** internat has quit IRC[04:47:50] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[04:50:42] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[05:05:11] *** higuita has quit IRC[05:06:50] *** freezey has joined #postfix[05:12:20] *** jarif has joined #postfix[05:21:36] *** higuita has joined #postfix[05:30:23] *** colt has joined #postfix[05:35:22] <fling> How to remove from queue all messages sent by an user?[05:36:14] <fling> or… how to send all the queue to an user? :P[05:37:43] <fling> What if I will create a temporary rewrite rule hmm hmmm[05:37:52] <fling> and use postsuper -r[05:47:14] <fling> hmm hmm.[05:47:37] <fling> How to change `to´ address in messages with known `from´ which are already in queue?[05:48:03] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[05:51:42] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[06:06:25] *** freezey has quit IRC[06:08:06] *** colt has quit IRC[06:12:44] *** exos has joined #postfix[06:15:28] *** exos_ has quit IRC[06:20:30] *** winux has quit IRC[06:21:03] *** joobz has joined #postfix[06:28:11] *** j4jackj is now known as Alagar1[06:30:04] *** Alagar1 is now known as j4j[06:32:38] *** j4j is now known as Alagar2[06:32:45] *** Alagar2 is now known as Alagar3[06:33:26] *** Alagar3 is now known as j4jackj[06:48:59] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[06:51:44] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[06:53:19] *** grundy has quit IRC[06:54:55] *** colt has joined #postfix[07:08:59] *** colt has quit IRC[07:16:40] *** winux has joined #postfix[07:26:19] *** winux has quit IRC[07:29:57] *** UQlev has joined #postfix[07:37:32] *** LoRez has quit IRC[07:45:36] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[07:46:21] *** winux has joined #postfix[07:49:04] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[07:51:23] *** UQlev has quit IRC[07:51:48] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[08:09:42] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[08:12:39] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[08:14:02] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[08:18:12] <loompek> fling try for i in sender_address at domain dot com; mailq | grep -E "^[A-Z0-9]{11}" | grep " $i$" | awk '{print $1}' | sed -e 's/*//' | postsuper -d -; done[08:18:48] <loompek> for sending... use postqeue -i...[08:19:00] <loompek> but you'll prolly have to provide only one queue ide[08:19:00] <twb> * looks wrong in that sed[08:19:07] *** j4jackj has quit IRC[08:19:16] <twb> But yeah mailq | magic | postsuper -d[08:19:20] <loompek> umm[08:19:32] *** j4jackj has joined #postfix[08:19:38] <loompek> that sed removes * (if it's in active queue)[08:21:01] <twb> loompek: yeah I realize, but I guess you don't need to escape it if there's nothing to the left of it[08:21:11] <twb> (* ususally is kleene star in regex, obviously.)[08:21:43] <loompek> umm[08:21:47] <loompek> use \* instead :)[08:22:03] <loompek> for i in sender_address at domain dot com; mailq | grep -E "^[A-Z0-9]{11}" | grep " $i$" | awk '{print $1}' | sed -e 's#\*##' | postsuper -d -; done[08:24:40] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[08:36:16] *** ced117 has joined #postfix[08:37:08] *** grundy has joined #postfix[08:44:56] *** maxter has joined #postfix[08:48:42] <grundy> Hi, hoping someone can help me out with a small roadblock. I wanted to use check_recipient_access with a cidr table, but that doesn't seem to work. I also failed with an IP address in a hash table. Is it possible at all to permit only recipients who's domains are in a specific IP range? Thanks so much.[08:48:59] <grundy> Incidentally, it's an IPv6 range, so the AAAA record is what I need to compare to, in case that should matter.[08:49:01] <pj> !tell grundy welcome[08:49:01] <knoba> grundy: "welcome" : Welcome to #postfix! If you're new here, or to IRC, first read the channel topic (/topic). It has important instructions on how to ask good questions. You will get more and better help if you follow those instructions. Good Luck![08:49:45] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[08:50:55] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[08:50:55] <grundy> !welcome[08:50:55] <knoba> grundy: "welcome" : Welcome to #postfix! If you're new here, or to IRC, first read the channel topic (/topic). It has important instructions on how to ask good questions. You will get more and better help if you follow those instructions. Good Luck![08:51:08] <grundy> Hmm.[08:51:32] <pj> grundy: check_recipient_access doesn't work with an IP address[08:52:00] <pj> it looks at recipient email address[08:52:26] <grundy> That much is clear to me, at least that it does not out of the box. I'm hoping to find some other solution, or some way to get it to work.[08:53:07] <pj> back up a min and tell me what the problem is yu're trying to solve.[08:53:17] <trurl> grundy: you need check_client_access = cidr:/[...] - and cidr works, at least for me[08:53:20] <grundy> I *could* just list domains that this class of users are allowed to send to, but it would be sooo much easier and more future proof to just use an IP range.[08:54:10] <grundy> I have a class of users that I don't want to allow to send email out to the internet (call them "untrusted"), but that still need to send within a large separate network.[08:54:23] <pj> trurl: that would be fine if he was trying to reject based on *clients*[08:54:37] <grundy> Indeed, I am not.[08:55:34] <grundy> I have an internal IP range that I want to restrict them too, within which the domains available to send to will vary over time.[08:55:59] <pj> grundy: ok, well I dont' think that check_recipient_access has anything to do with what you want, then.[08:56:04] <grundy> I was hoping to find a "solve once" solution, so I would not need to accommodate future changes manually.[08:56:33] <grundy> I suspected as much, I just couldn't come up with anything else. :([08:57:10] <pj> well ...[08:57:17] <grundy> Note I have root level control of the host, I can do whatever it takes.[08:57:38] <grundy> I don't care how hacky it is as long as it solves the problem.[08:57:42] <pj> grundy: sure, I'm thinking...[08:58:00] <pj> I think there should be a fairly direct way to solve it, though...[08:58:31] * grundy thinks there ought to be a table option that simply accepts a python script or something. It's not like mysql: isn't pretty close already...[09:00:02] <pj> grundy: well relay_domains seems to be the more appropriate way to do it.[09:00:29] <pj> but that may still have the same problem.[09:01:22] <pj> grundy: the issue is you're trying to match the recipient, maybe for what you want you just want to use a policy caemon.[09:01:25] <pj> *daemon[09:01:34] <pj> !policy[09:01:34] <knoba> pj: "policy" : Postfix smtpd(8) policy protocol, http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html , for complex and intelligent restrictions[09:01:43] <pj> grundy: ^^^^[09:02:30] <pj> have the policy daemon do a lookup on the recipient domain. Incidentally it is incorrect to directly lookup a domain's IP anyways, you should be looking up the IP address of the MX host.[09:02:32] <grundy> Hmm...[09:02:55] <grundy> Well, yes, that's really what I meant. Sorry. :)[09:03:28] <grundy> Thank you, it seems I have some reading to do![09:03:31] <pj> grundy: also look at check_recipient_mx_access[09:04:19] <grundy> Will that accept a cidr table?[09:04:27] <pj> I don't know.[09:04:36] <grundy> I'll try that too. Thanks again. :)[09:04:43] <pj> yw[09:17:22] <grundy> One more bit of help requested. What the hell is this ---> warning: restriction check_recipient_mx_access returns OK for <email address I tried to send to>[09:17:34] <grundy> warning: this is not allowed for security reasons[09:18:31] <grundy> It seems to work the way I want with a cidr table, but it causes an error.[09:19:58] <grundy> It says it will let me use dunno... but I don't want to. This is at the end of my chain of restrictions.[09:27:34] <grundy> Ug. Nevermind, I'll work around it. :P[09:37:57] <grundy> pj: Huzzah! Once I worked out a few other kinks, check_recipient_mx_access did indeed work! Took a cidr table like a champ. Thanks again![09:39:17] *** UQlev has joined #postfix[09:39:55] *** wdp has joined #postfix[09:41:28] *** grundy has quit IRC[09:44:10] *** skopii has quit IRC[09:49:46] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[09:50:08] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[09:53:02] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[09:59:06] *** nickfennell has joined #postfix[10:04:50] *** UQlev has quit IRC[10:07:39] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[10:11:23] *** ced117 has quit IRC[10:16:24] *** ced117 has joined #postfix[10:29:08] *** exos_ has joined #postfix[10:32:06] *** exos has quit IRC[10:42:34] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[10:44:29] *** joobz has quit IRC[10:50:45] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[10:50:45] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[10:54:06] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[10:57:41] *** winux has quit IRC[10:58:28] *** necrogami has quit IRC[10:59:10] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[10:59:56] *** necrogami has joined #postfix[11:00:17] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[11:00:41] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[11:08:29] *** twb has quit IRC[11:12:27] *** ffiore has quit IRC[11:12:34] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[11:16:12] *** winux has joined #postfix[11:34:51] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[11:36:14] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[11:41:41] *** winux has quit IRC[11:47:09] *** kiri has quit IRC[11:51:08] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[11:53:01] *** andreiiar has joined #postfix[11:53:07] <andreiiar> Hello. This is dog.[11:53:43] <andreiiar> I apt-get my postfix but choose no config and there is no main.cf in my postfix dir. How do I remedy that?!?[11:54:19] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[11:54:27] <andreiiar> I chose no config because I have 2 computers and want to set up a local lab to see how mail and dns behaves[11:54:46] <andreiiar> So I didn;'t want mail to go out internet.[12:02:36] *** [diablo] has joined #postfix[12:13:12] *** Bigsista has joined #postfix[12:15:49] <andreiiar> Is there anybody out there.[12:17:51] *** Bigsista has quit IRC[12:18:44] *** jad_jay has joined #postfix[12:26:23] *** LumberCartel has joined #postfix[12:26:44] *** LumberCartel has joined #postfix[12:29:33] <waldi> andreiiar: you asked for no config, so there is none. dpkg-reconfigure postfix will work, or find the example config in the source[12:29:35] <LumberCartel> Hello folks. I'm trying to do some queue management, but I'm running into some trouble with a shell script I created to do this. First the script extracts all the IDs from mailq's output, and then I test the output of grep to find a particular "authenticated sender." The problem is that I'm just not having any success at getting it working. Outside of the loop, the grep statement works fine.[12:29:36] <LumberCartel> http://www.pastebin.ca/raw/2462108[12:30:08] <LumberCartel> If there's a built-in way to delete messages in the queue from a particular authenticated sender, that would be great, but I couldn't find it in the documentation, which is why I have been trying to get this working.[12:30:26] <waldi> LumberCartel: please describe what you try to do[12:30:27] <LumberCartel> Any suggestions (even if I should be asking in a different channel) would be appreciated. Thanks.[12:30:45] <LumberCartel> waldi: I'm trying to delete messages from a partcular "authenticated sender" from the queue.[12:31:24] <waldi> and _why_ do you want this?[12:32:47] <LumberCartel> Because on the server in question a user has a machine infected with spyware that went off on a spam run. Postfix is down for now, until these messages can be removed from the queue, but there are more than 100,000 messages and not all of them are from this sender.[12:34:22] <trurl> wow ;)[12:34:23] <waldi> don't use ``, use §()[12:34:27] <waldi> err, $()[12:35:02] <waldi> don't use mailq but find on the queue directly[12:35:05] <LumberCartel> Okay, I'll try that.[12:35:46] *** gstaniak has joined #postfix[12:35:50] <gstaniak> hi[12:35:50] <LumberCartel> In the past when I've asked about accessing the queue directly, it was strongly discouraged and I never got information on how to do that. Of course, I'm interested in finding out how to access the queue directly.[12:36:00] <waldi> LumberCartel: and what is the error your original script produced?[12:36:16] <waldi> "grep < `echo bla`" doesn't look really useful[12:36:31] <waldi> because < wants a filename, not a string[12:36:55] <LumberCartel> cannot open : no such file[12:36:55] <LumberCartel> [: 0: unexpected operator[12:38:32] <LumberCartel> Okay, so it seems that my understanding of shell scripting is wrong.[12:39:08] *** lunaphyte has quit IRC[12:39:36] *** lunaphyte has joined #postfix[12:40:45] <andreiiar> ""Cannot open mailbox /var/mail/andrei: Permission denied"" what is this?[12:40:45] <andreiiar> can't access my own mail?[12:45:41] <gstaniak> is there an "official" (recommended, best practice) way to set up a "vacation" autoresponder for users in a domain? i have a non-typical setup at one site -- users aliased to system accounts, but all with /bin/false as shell, so the old school .forward solution is not possible. vacation messages can be installed by an admin, so all i need is a nice way to do the autoresponding itself without access to system accounts. any ideas?[12:46:52] <waldi> gstaniak: use sieve, for example included in dovecot[12:49:06] <gstaniak> waldi: that would mean changing the mda here, but ok, worth a try. is there a sieve setup for autoresponding described somewhere in the docs?[12:49:47] <gstaniak> hmm, i see some examples on the dovecot site[12:50:24] <LumberCartel> waldi: Thanks for your help. You got me headed in the right direction to get the loop working properly now.[12:51:45] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[12:52:14] <waldi> gstaniak: http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Pigeonhole/Sieve/Examples#Vacation_auto-reply[12:53:13] <gstaniak> waldi: i was just reading the very same document ;) thx[12:54:31] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[12:55:39] <andreiiar> Why U no help me?[12:56:11] <waldi> andreiiar: why don't you write english?[12:56:49] *** err-or has quit IRC[12:57:09] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: You probably need to get your file system permissions sorted out. This will probably get you headed in the right direction: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/cannot-access-mailbox-cannot-open-file-Permission-denied-td6112.html[12:57:25] <andreiiar> Thx[12:57:36] *** err-or has joined #postfix[12:57:45] <andreiiar> Si nu cred ca am vorbit romana sau altceva decat engleza.[12:57:48] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Postfix can also be configured to ignore the file system permissions, but it's better to get them right.[12:59:17] *** prooz has quit IRC[12:59:22] <LumberCartel> trurl: Yes, "wow" was my reaction at first too -- 104,000 messages seemed like a lot, but postfix handles the load just fine.[12:59:35] <LumberCartel> trurl: I'm presently down to 70,000 messages left in the queue now.[13:04:27] *** kiri has joined #postfix[13:08:16] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: For future reference, it's important to understand that people are helping others for free here, and sometimes responses can take longer for certain issues. The reason I couldn't respond quickly was that I was in the middle of resolving a major issue and had to focus.[13:10:00] <andreiiar> I payed 20 dollars for my mirc what you mean free?[13:10:16] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: I bet you paid more for your computer.[13:10:28] <andreiiar> No.[13:10:37] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Well, most people on IRC probably did.[13:11:38] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Anyway, whatever you paid for the hardware and software you're using is of no consequence to people here helping for free. I use IceChat, some use mirc, some use bitchx, and there are many others. IRC is a protocol that makes it possible for all this software to interact consistently (well, for the most part).[13:13:01] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Instead of calling a commercial technical support service that charges by the hour (or the minute), you get this wonderful IRC resource that doesn't incur these types of costs. The main trade-off is that answers sometimes come with a bit of waiting.[13:13:19] <trurl> LumberCartel: i'd buy this: http://goo.gl/1WmEi2 ;)[13:13:25] <andreiiar> And I have to nag people for them ahaha[13:14:03] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Well, I don't recommend nagging people. It's better to just be patient.[13:14:08] <pj> andreiiar: no, you just have to be patient.[13:14:26] <LumberCartel> pj++[13:14:28] <LumberCartel> trurl++[13:14:29] <andreiiar> I found that flooding and nagging works better.[13:14:45] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Then you're not a long-term thinker.[13:14:52] <pj> flooding and nagging gets you ignored, or kicked or banned.[13:15:00] <andreiiar> No. I only live in the now sorry[13:15:13] <andreiiar> Ekhart Tolle teach me that.[13:15:23] <pj> andreiiar: anyways, have fun findign someone to help you, I won't.[13:15:46] <trurl> okay, is there a "do not feed the troll"-macro?[13:15:52] *** ghoti_ has quit IRC[13:15:58] <pj> trurl: yep, it's called /ignore[13:16:26] *** ghoti_ has joined #postfix[13:16:29] <andreiiar> I;m a human beeing god damn it, my life has value.[13:16:41] <pj> not to me.[13:17:01] <andreiiar> I don't like you pj.[13:17:07] *** ghoti_ has quit IRC[13:17:10] <pj> and I don't care.[13:17:33] <andreiiar> You care enough to say you don't care.[13:18:11] * pj shrugs.[13:18:19] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Ekhart Tolle appears to be one of those new-age "spiritual" authors. Is he starting a cult? I find Friedrich Neitzsche to be a far more profound influence, and a lot more practical, than all of these new-age spiritual happy-clappy book authors combined.[13:18:50] <pj> and you're a liar, btw, you're not even using mirc.[13:19:02] <andreiiar> I find Nieche hard to read. Tolle is more reader friendly.[13:20:00] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Start with "The Joyful Wisdom of Friedrich Neitzsche" then. As long as you don't believe that life has a purpose, you likely won't feel like slitting your wrists after reading him.[13:20:45] <andreiiar> I don;t know what to believe.[13:20:53] <andreiiar> You can't be sure of anything[13:21:08] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: That's a great foundation for skepticism.[13:22:08] *** cesspit has joined #postfix[13:22:55] <andreiiar> Have you read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gay_Science[13:23:27] <andreiiar> lol[13:23:54] <andreiiar> Oh it's the samy thing[13:25:12] <LumberCartel> I've not read that one yet, but it's on my list (I have a long list of books to read, and finding audiobooks has been helpful in getting that list down faster).[13:26:03] <andreiiar> I hate audiobooks. I cant read if I dont have a real book in my hand. ereaders are ok too. But I cant read on a computer monitor.[13:26:28] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: So, anyway, as you can see there are friendly people around. If you had a more patient approach, you wouldn't be alienating yourself from folks like pj who very likely knows how to resolve your problem. I hope that in the future you'll take this seriously.[13:28:38] <andreiiar> It seems that there is no folder for users in /var/mail[13:29:10] <andreiiar> And ok I will try it.[13:29:18] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: Great. Thanks.[13:31:08] <andreiiar> So you don't know postfix?[13:31:11] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: For that permissions problem, you'll need to be clear on a few things, such as making sure you know where the mailbox/maildir is expected to be, and then making sure that postfix has the proper permissions to create these directories (or Dovecot, etc.) depending on your postfix configuration.[13:32:20] <andreiiar> Shuld I add postfix user to mail group?[13:32:27] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: I do, but I'm not an expert like many of the folks here (who've helped me greatly a number of times over the years). My system is highly customized to use PostgreSQL for the userstore, and a few perl scripts I wrote to make .forward files work and do some other things like that.[13:35:49] <LumberCartel> andreiiar: If that directory is in the mail group, then that certainly could help. You should read this documentation first though: http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html[13:36:08] <LumberCartel> If you haven't already, then you should becuase it will be very helpful.[13:36:11] <LumberCartel> Are you using Dovecot?[13:36:29] <andreiiar> No. postfix[13:36:41] <andreiiar> Or they arent mutualy exclusive?[13:37:02] <LumberCartel> Postfix provides SMTP service. Dovecot is one of a number of options for providing POP3 and IMAP4 service.[13:37:09] <andreiiar> what does s stand for in permissions? sticky bit?[13:37:24] <andreiiar> no i just use mail to read them[13:37:33] <LumberCartel> Okay, with that last question, I think you really need to start learning about unix file security.[13:38:04] *** prooz has joined #postfix[13:38:16] <andreiiar> I did i just cant remember if s is stickybit[13:38:35] <andreiiar> How could I ahve known of sticky bit if I wasnt aware of file security[13:40:09] *** gstaniak has quit IRC[13:41:06] <LumberCartel> Sticky bit and related information: http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/02/sticky-bit-on-directory-file/[13:44:57] <andreiiar> Ok. I got to send mail.[13:45:05] <andreiiar> But only to @localhost[13:45:19] <andreiiar> If I use my fake domain name I dont recieve anything.[13:46:29] <andreiiar> Ok so the s is for guid[13:47:20] <andreiiar> I told you I know staff.[13:48:24] <andreiiar> I have to go naw[13:48:27] *** andreiiar has quit IRC[13:52:48] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[13:53:19] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[13:57:05] *** chris|| has quit IRC[13:57:56] *** Section1 has joined #postfix[14:03:30] *** chris| has joined #postfix[14:05:37] *** LumberCartel has quit IRC[14:23:57] *** Yulth has quit IRC[14:24:06] *** nbg has quit IRC[14:34:19] *** danfromuk has joined #postfix[14:36:23] *** joules has joined #postfix[14:37:38] <joules> hi, what do people think of unset "To: " data fields? When its not set (defaults to "undisclosed recipients" etc), I have it sort to users spam folder, bad idea[14:37:41] <joules> ?[14:37:52] <lunaphyte_> do not munge headers[14:38:16] <joules> ?[14:38:25] <lunaphyte_> and do not use the To: header to sort spam.[14:38:51] <joules> catches alot.[14:39:18] <thumbs> wow[14:40:35] <rob0> Seems like most spammers that get through my postscreen have worked a bit harder and know a bit of RFC 5322.[14:41:38] <rob0> So, here I am, having preached against backup MX hosts, having to set one up. My MX motherboard died, and Dell's "overnight service" was a sham and a farce.[14:42:52] <rob0> Four attached drives, all at once, disappeared from the system. A Dell rep, either a liar or utterly incompetent, is blaming our hard drives for the failure.[14:44:00] <joules> lunaphyte_: I *personally* hate "To: undisclosed-recipients:;" its rude.[14:44:34] <joules> esp when I have aliases and I have to view source to what the rcpt to: was obviously set at.[14:44:49] <rob0> The crash was Wednesday. "Overnight," being generous, would be today. But they're playing games. And I am badmouthing Dell for it.[14:45:07] <joules> what dell server?[14:45:20] <joules> I want a r720 for xmas[14:45:51] *** exos has joined #postfix[14:46:04] <rob0> I don't remember the details. Oh, I think it's an r410[14:46:10] <rob0> 1u[14:48:07] <joules> 4 disks in raid10??[14:48:15] <joules> thats a bit of bad luck.[14:48:18] <joules> =)[14:48:45] <rob0> I think we have a pair of RAID5[14:48:53] *** exos_ has quit IRC[14:50:25] <rob0> We actually had this controller failure 3 months ago, but on second try from idrac console, it booted. And it ran 3 months. But now it won't boot at all.[14:52:24] *** danfromuk_ has joined #postfix[14:52:44] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[14:54:48] *** danfromuk has quit IRC[14:55:26] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[14:56:29] *** danfromuk_ has quit IRC[14:57:37] *** master_o1_master has joined #postfix[14:57:42] *** danfromuk_ has joined #postfix[14:58:31] *** fireglow has quit IRC[15:01:07] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[15:01:12] *** master_of_master has quit IRC[15:02:17] *** fireglow has joined #postfix[15:02:38] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[15:05:16] *** ffiore has quit IRC[15:05:32] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[15:06:18] <joules> "undisclosed_recipients_header", I suppose the spec requires something there. Is there any reason why it can't be set to what rcpt to: is by default?[15:07:23] <lunaphyte_> the envelope sender and the to: header are just different things.[15:07:46] <joules> yes i know.[15:07:47] <lunaphyte_> err[15:07:54] <lunaphyte_> sorry, the envelope recipient, rather.[15:08:14] <lunaphyte_> it's a choice the sender makes when constructing the message. a personal preference, essentially.[15:08:50] <joules> yep but this the sender thats not doing the right thing forcing postfix to make it compliant with the spec.[15:09:35] *** andreiiar has joined #postfix[15:09:38] <andreiiar> I'm back![15:10:02] <lunaphyte_> oh. i think i completely misunderstood your initial message[15:10:04] <joules> its more than happy to set the From: header == mail from:[15:10:11] <joules> just saying.[15:11:15] *** bungalo has joined #postfix[15:11:55] *** [sr] has quit IRC[15:11:58] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[15:12:06] *** ffiore has quit IRC[15:12:38] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[15:12:53] *** Rez has joined #postfix[15:12:55] *** Rez is now known as Lo[15:13:40] <lunaphyte_> on further consideration, i'm not sure the client can actually dtrt.[15:14:44] *** Lo is now known as LoRez[15:14:48] <lunaphyte_> if it gives a single message to an msa, with multiple recipients [think bcc], it can't set a unique header for each. there's only one message.[15:15:17] <lunaphyte_> so maybe if there is only a single envelope recipient, it could be argued as tolerable to set the To: header to match?[15:15:24] <waldi> no[15:15:58] <patdk-wk> how does the mta know there was only one to start with?[15:16:04] <lunaphyte_> rather, to be clear, if there is a single envelope recipient, and the To: header is either missing or empty.[15:16:14] <patdk-wk> you will not know if you where the just copied or what[15:16:15] <lunaphyte_> i don't follow[15:16:27] <joules> there can only be a single envelope recipient.[15:16:40] <patdk-wk> joules, no, there can be thousands[15:16:52] <patdk-wk> unless you configured your mta oddly[15:17:17] *** [diablo] has quit IRC[15:18:33] <joules> I'm talking about a single client instance, rcpt to: only takes one arguement.[15:18:48] <patdk-wk> yes[15:18:56] <patdk-wk> but you can repeat rcpt to: as many times as you wish[15:19:02] <patdk-wk> till you run into a configuration limit[15:19:57] <patdk-wk> if you send an email to many people, it does this, to only send one copy to the server[15:20:00] <joules> and we still have "To: undisclosed-recipients..or whatever"[15:20:08] <lunaphyte_> yes. hence my thought.[15:20:30] <patdk-wk> well, the To header is set by the mua, the mta doesn't touch it, normally[15:20:57] <joules> And I have to Ctrl-S (tb) the email.[15:21:07] <lunaphyte_> if the mta "fixed" that, what could the negative effects be?[15:21:29] <patdk-wk> users can't bcc people, without showing everyone who[15:21:43] <lunaphyte_> why not?[15:21:55] <patdk-wk> cause the bcc rcpt to would be added to the To line[15:22:29] <lunaphyte_> why?[15:22:42] <joules> you don't have to set any data at all, just the "mail from" and "rcpt to" headers, postfix will construct a proper "From:" data field and "To:" gets something not very useful.[15:23:35] <patdk-wk> your saying, if your mua sends a horribly inproper email[15:23:46] <patdk-wk> and postfix fixes it to meet min specs?[15:23:51] <joules> ya[15:24:00] <patdk-wk> sounds like mua issue[15:24:24] <patdk-wk> no[15:24:35] <patdk-wk> heh, random no to wrong window :)[15:25:30] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[15:25:34] <joules> so a spammy script leaves out the "To" data header and I filter it to spam. DONE![15:25:51] <patdk-wk> I would :)[15:26:04] <joules> I have been.[15:28:28] *** robinho86 has joined #postfix[15:28:52] *** mjt has joined #postfix[15:28:58] <andreiiar> How do I trouble shoot postfix? I want to make a local mail server and dns server to be used LAN only. I can mail to localhost but if I use the domain name instead of localhost the mail just sits in queue.[15:29:23] <lunaphyte_> like any other software.[15:29:26] <lunaphyte_> you look at the logs.[15:29:30] <rob0> !soho[15:29:31] <knoba> rob0: "soho" : Small/home office hints and tips: http://www.postfix.org/SOHO_README.html[15:29:55] <mjt> heh. nothing changed in recent 13 years. the same questions, the same answers...[15:29:56] <andreiiar> I would never have thought of that. Thank you lunaphyte you are a lifesaver.[15:30:06] <lunaphyte_> being snide?[15:30:26] <rob0> As long as your imaginary name is in mydestination, Postfix knows how to deliver to users@thatname[15:30:36] <lunaphyte_> !tell andreiiar getting_help[15:30:36] <knoba> andreiiar: "getting_help" : before asking your question, provide a pastebin which includes relevant log data and your config. see !pastebin, !relevant_logs and !showconfig for instructions on doing this.[15:30:48] <lunaphyte_> learn to ask a meaningful question, and you will get meaningful answers.[15:30:52] <rob0> obviously you can't deliver to the outside with an imaginary name[15:31:10] <andreiiar> How do I flush the mail queue?[15:31:24] <joules> patdk-wk: I have to unset it, unfortunately alot of broken bulk mailers don't set it...[15:31:25] <lunaphyte_> man postfix[15:32:11] <mjt> hello guys/gals. I haven't been here for a very long time, but I'm back and... I've a question... ;)[15:32:27] <rob0> mjt: wb! How have you been?[15:32:34] <mjt> tired ;)[15:32:36] <andreiiar> Not like flush send the mail. I want do erase the mail queue[15:32:42] <lunaphyte_> man postsuper[15:32:43] <rob0> I can relate.[15:32:44] <andreiiar> Be nothing there[15:32:47] <joules> mjt: missed u.[15:33:18] <joules> oh, im a dude, with a girls name.[15:33:26] <joules> *shrug*[15:33:30] <mjt> it's been long ago when i tried to outperform Ralf in answering postfix-users@ emails ;)[15:34:03] <rob0> heh, I have been away from the mailing list since my MX machine died on Wednesday.[15:34:22] <rob0> (now very busy trying to put up a surrogate)[15:34:43] <mjt> but anyway. Postscreen + gmail. They perform every delivery attempt from a new IP address, so postscreen always gives 4xx, even if I set TWO MX records pointing to the same server, in a hope that SECOND attempt from a new IP will succeed.[15:34:58] <mjt> rob0: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postscreen-Greylisting-Penalty-Time-td913.html :)[15:35:06] <lunaphyte_> yeah. that's a bit frustrating.[15:35:09] <rob0> yes, that sucks. 2.11 has a new feature.[15:35:20] <lunaphyte_> it's effectively the same issue greylisting suffers from.[15:35:26] *** danfromuk_ has quit IRC[15:35:29] <joules> gnite thanks for the debate.[15:35:31] <lunaphyte_> or rather, the same as one issue.[15:35:31] *** joules has quit IRC[15:35:58] <lunaphyte_> for the time being, i've simply disabled deep protocol tests, unfortunately.[15:36:10] <lunaphyte_> once i have time, i'll upgrade to 2.11[15:36:23] <mjt> it's easy to whitelist the IPs listed in their SPF record[15:36:33] <mjt> but i'd rather not do that[15:36:41] <rob0> I'm using 2.11. Yes, without 2.11 that's what you have to do.[15:36:53] <lunaphyte_> well, that's exactly what prompted me to disable after 220 checks for now.[15:36:56] <mjt> what 2.11 has which helps here?[15:37:08] <lunaphyte_> you're right, it is easy to be based on spf, and i agree it's dumb too.[15:37:17] *** winux has joined #postfix[15:37:36] <lunaphyte_> but, the problem is with, for example, a big sender like yahoo, who "doesn't agree with/doesn't believe in" spf records, and thus has none.[15:37:39] <rob0> postscreen_ ... hang on, my MX host is dead :([15:38:16] <mjt> lunaphyte_: note i mentioned second MX pointing to the same server at my side -- this prob (slow first email) is more or less solved here since the days before postscreen... ;) For the first time I see a sender that performs second attempt from completely different ip address[15:38:44] <lunaphyte_> yeah, i know what you mean. but we're all still having the issue though. that hasn't changed.[15:38:47] <mjt> like, they try from 74.125.82.181, and after failure, within 5 seconds, from 209.85.212.181[15:38:56] <rob0> postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold = -1[15:39:21] <mjt> knoba: postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold[15:39:23] <mjt> er[15:39:28] <rob0> If you're querying DNS whitelists in postscreen, you get a negative score.[15:39:46] <rob0> no, I have not yet put up a factoid for that[15:39:50] <mjt> ;)[15:40:10] <rob0> But anyway, it was wonderful while it lasted![15:40:38] <rob0> I got every gmail and facebook mail immediately, with no maintenance of a whitelist.[15:40:52] <mjt> heh. i'm using postfix 2.8 still...[15:46:34] <lunaphyte_> i'm too lazy to build postfix myself much these days :)[15:46:47] *** jarif has quit IRC[15:47:15] *** mstenta has joined #postfix[15:48:24] *** fzabala has joined #postfix[15:50:20] <mstenta> Hey all, I'm trying to send emails from a postfix server running in an Ubuntu virtual machine. I have the main.cf configured exactly the same as on a live server, which works. However, within the VM, mails just get stuck in the mail queue.[15:50:36] *** winux has quit IRC[15:50:37] <lunaphyte_> !tell mstenta getting_help[15:50:38] <knoba> mstenta: "getting_help" : before asking your question, provide a pastebin which includes relevant log data and your config. see !pastebin, !relevant_logs and !showconfig for instructions on doing this.[15:50:41] <patdk-wk> mstenta, sounds nice[15:51:50] <mstenta> I am testing sending to my Google Apps email address, which is hooked up to my domain name. But in the mailq it says "Connection timed out"... it looks like it's trying to send the mail directly to my domain name, rather than abiding by the MX records and sending it to Google's server.[15:52:59] *** fzabala has left #postfix[15:53:33] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[15:55:10] <patdk-wk> mstenta, that is nice, but couldn't really care less[15:56:38] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[16:12:37] *** mstenta has left #postfix[16:13:01] *** Cromulent has joined #postfix[16:15:46] *** s0ber has quit IRC[16:16:23] *** s0ber has joined #postfix[16:17:52] *** Cromulent has quit IRC[16:22:32] *** Seifer has joined #postfix[16:22:43] *** s0ber has quit IRC[16:23:16] *** s0ber has joined #postfix[16:25:04] *** s0ber has quit IRC[16:25:25] *** s0ber has joined #postfix[16:25:29] <Seifer> Hi! I have a bit of a question that I wasn't able to clarify via the usual means ( google, wikis, and such )[16:25:49] <Seifer> It's probably that I'm not doing the correct search, but, here it goes[16:26:18] <mjt> return ETOOMUCHINTROWORDS; tl;dr ;)[16:26:28] <Seifer> I have a zimbra server which uses a separate postfix relay for mails[16:27:07] <Seifer> it's all working nice and dandy, but I'd like to setup a second postfix, basically a clone of the first one, on a separate network[16:27:31] <Seifer> so it can act initially as a backup MX and once it works at that, replace the fist one[16:28:45] <Seifer> AFAIK I can just create 2 mx records on the dns, and playing with their weight values determine which one acts as a backup and which one is the preferred mx[16:28:53] <Seifer> now. my question:[16:29:07] <lunaphyte_> so postfix is your mx, which then relays to zimbra?[16:29:14] <Seifer> exactly[16:29:18] *** Southron has joined #postfix[16:29:48] <lunaphyte_> no reason for "backup mx" stuff then.[16:30:02] <Seifer> so, what would be, in a high level view, the steps to perform?[16:30:04] <lunaphyte_> just set up your new server, get it configured, test it, then switch.[16:30:19] <Seifer> well, fair enough[16:30:47] <Seifer> I thought the backup part was just a "transition", but, if there's no need for it, even better[16:31:10] <Seifer> It's unclear to me if I need to touch anything on the zimbra's config[16:32:03] <Seifer> I'd guess I don't, since I don't need to reference the relay directly[16:33:09] <lunaphyte_> depends on how exactly you relay to zimbra[16:33:15] <lunaphyte_> !show_config[16:33:15] <knoba> lunaphyte_: "show_config" : postconf -nf and postconf -Mf will return the current config, as is appropriate for a pastebin when asking for help. if your version is older than 2.9, see !show_oldconfig[16:33:51] *** freezey has joined #postfix[16:35:51] *** robinho86 has quit IRC[16:38:33] *** MaximusColourum has joined #postfix[16:38:49] <Seifer> I'm running 2.5.5 , according to : postconf -d | grep mail_version[16:39:12] <patdk-wk> !verzion[16:39:13] <knoba> patdk-wk: Error: "verzion" is not a valid command.[16:39:15] <patdk-wk> !version[16:39:16] <knoba> patdk-wk: The current (running) version of this Supybot is 0.83.4.1. The newest version available online is 0.83.4.1.[16:39:22] <patdk-wk> do what?[16:39:28] * patdk-wk smacks knoba[16:39:32] <lunaphyte_> yikes. indeed, it's time to upgrade[16:41:51] *** worstadmin has quit IRC[16:42:39] *** Cromulent has joined #postfix[16:43:22] <Seifer> I know, i will once I move the server here[16:44:18] <Seifer> but anyways, I don't think I understood what commands were you asking me to run to check the config[16:44:47] <rob0> if your version is older than 2.9, see !show_oldconfig[16:44:53] <rob0> !show_oldconfig[16:44:53] <knoba> rob0: "show_oldconfig" : if you are using a version older than 2.9, postconf -n and master.cf with comments removed will present the current config in a manner suitable for a pastebin when asking for help. if you are using 2.9 or newer, see !show_config[16:45:14] *** tolkor has joined #postfix[16:45:19] <lunaphyte_> i don't know what you mean "I don't think I understood what commands were you asking me to run to check the config"[16:45:30] <andreiiar> Ok. I managed somehow - I really don't know how to send a mail from one computer to another one. "Oct 4 12:36:39 centos postfix/smtp[3345]: AEC334FF1: to=<andrei at home dot lab>, relay=home.lab[192.168.0.100]:25, delay=20, delays=19/0.02/0.16/0.36, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 684BE3FA89)". But when I type mail at 192.168.0.100 I see no message.[16:47:26] <Zelest> Gah.. a spam got through which I can't block :([16:47:37] <j4jackj> Zelest: image spam?[16:48:07] <Zelest> Nah, I *can* probably write some rule for it.. but I'm pretty sure it will trigger a lot of false positives[16:48:26] <j4jackj> Zelest: what was it?[16:48:51] <j4jackj> Was it from a highjacked Hotmail or Yahoo?[16:48:57] <Zelest> nope[16:48:59] <Seifer> !show_oldconfig[16:48:59] <knoba> Seifer: "show_oldconfig" : if you are using a version older than 2.9, postconf -n and master.cf with comments removed will present the current config in a manner suitable for a pastebin when asking for help. if you are using 2.9 or newer, see !show_config[16:49:13] <Zelest> sent from what seems to be a hacked squirrelmail server.. unless the agent is faked[16:49:15] <Seifer> oh, whoops[16:49:24] <andreiiar> Can you guise help me too?[16:49:30] <Zelest> but a legit server, not blacklisted, even listed at dnswl (but without trust)[16:49:38] <j4jackj> andreiiar: maybe[16:49:40] *** worstadmin has joined #postfix[16:49:45] <Seifer> awesome, thanks, coming right up[16:49:58] <j4jackj> Zelest: try getting it blacklisted[16:50:26] <Zelest> how do i do that?[16:50:59] <j4jackj> Zelest: first, tell your own server to blacklist it. then, call various spam blacklists about maybe getting the server blacklisted.[16:51:26] <j4jackj> Altho...[16:51:32] <Zelest> it's just one mail though[16:51:48] <j4jackj> try forwarding the mail to abuse@ for the domain it was sent from.[16:52:12] <andreiiar> Wait. Problem is with dns I think. I retract my question for the time beeing.[16:52:14] <Zelest> and what's saying that's a legit from domain?[16:52:15] <patdk-wk> man, so much work over a single spam mail?[16:52:32] <Zelest> patdk-wk, mhm.[16:52:43] <andreiiar> I got an interview at SpamExperts in a week.[16:52:55] <j4jackj> Zelest: it probably is if the spammer isn't too intelligent.[16:53:18] <tuxick> image spam? they still do that??[16:53:29] <j4jackj> I have replied to spams telling the user that they spammed me and most of the time they correct their account[16:53:34] <Zelest> i could do a whois of the sending server and contact the isp of that block instead.[16:53:41] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[16:53:42] <j4jackj> Yes.[16:56:38] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[16:58:24] <mns> between spamassassin and dspam, which would people recommend to use ?[16:58:35] <patdk-wk> both?[17:00:10] <mns> why would I need both ? wont just one of them do ? my understanding was they did the same thing.[17:00:29] <patdk-wk> heh?[17:00:32] <patdk-wk> they are totally different[17:01:08] * rob0 would recommend amavisd-new with spamassassin, but only after good postscreen and pre-DATA checks.[17:04:21] <patdk-wk> that works good, I just find training spamass doesn't work well[17:04:34] <patdk-wk> but using dspam for training, does good, to fill in the hole[17:06:35] *** wdp has quit IRC[17:07:26] *** noetik has quit IRC[17:08:34] <mns> rob0: I have postscreen setup already, now just moving to the next line of defense. patdk-wk: hmm I better go read again about spamass[17:11:04] <patdk-wk> spamass does content matching, rule based[17:11:10] <patdk-wk> it has some bayes stuff though[17:11:16] <patdk-wk> dpsam is bayes only solution[17:11:47] <patdk-wk> so, spamassassin strengths, rules, rbl's[17:12:06] <rob0> I would expect URIBL rules to be the most effective.[17:12:13] <patdk-wk> dspam strength though, since it's based on training, is as good as you feed it[17:12:34] <patdk-wk> I find uribl rules to be too effective :([17:13:40] <Seifer> Here, sorry for the delay http://pastebin.com/z6jqZB0v[17:15:37] <Seifer> the host on "mynetworks" is a UPS that sends mails. I removed the network of the actual zimbra server and it's domain, but just that[17:17:38] *** ffiore has quit IRC[17:17:44] <mns> patdk-wk: thanks. that helps. for my use case, personal mail-server at home, so far postscreen has done a very effective job as is. I am just trying to take the next steps and see what else I can do and should do. I've gone down to maybe 1-3 spams a week. I used to use ASSP, but it was allowing a lot more in than it should have, so added postscreen, and presto, most of the stuff is gone.[17:17:44] <patdk-wk> what is the problem? logs?[17:18:22] *** jarif has joined #postfix[17:19:22] *** tjikkun_work has quit IRC[17:19:33] <rob0> Seifer: there are no logs in that. What are you asking?[17:19:34] *** freezey has quit IRC[17:20:23] *** monkwitdafunk has joined #postfix[17:21:28] <patdk-wk> you really need to figure out where you lost your crystal ball at[17:24:06] *** steven4455 has joined #postfix[17:28:06] *** freezey has joined #postfix[17:29:11] <rob0> I still have it, just not interested in using it right now! Too much of my own work to do.[17:35:44] <j4jackj> rob0: hehey[17:37:55] *** Monotoko has joined #postfix[17:38:39] <Seifer> No problems, I'm trying to organize the steps I'd need to follow to setup the new relay[17:38:57] <patdk-wk> step one, locate the need[17:39:05] <patdk-wk> step two, research[17:39:13] <patdk-wk> step three, screw it up[17:39:18] <patdk-wk> step four, hire rob0[17:39:24] <Seifer> please don't patronize me[17:39:34] <patdk-wk> :)[17:39:52] <j4jackj> :):):)[17:40:10] <Seifer> I don't know if you were here when I first explained what I was trying to do[17:40:18] <j4jackj> I have logs[17:40:38] <j4jackj> I always keep logs[17:40:44] <patdk-wk> explainations without logs, are hard to understand[17:41:02] <patdk-wk> way too many times, people think one thing, and the logs say something else[17:41:24] <Seifer> how could I possibly log something that WILL happen ?[17:41:50] <rob0> relays.mail-abuse.org, does that exist? Oct 4 10:41:42 chestnut named[13467]: zone 10.168.192.in-addr.arpa/IN/vpn: zone_resigninc:dns_journal_write_transaction -> unexpected error[17:41:56] *** Bigsista has joined #postfix[17:41:56] *** Bigsista has left #postfix[17:42:03] <rob0> oops, wrong paste[17:42:04] <Seifer> I have a working sistem, I just want to migrate the relay from one place to another, without interrupting the service[17:42:16] <rob0> butu anyway, I got a servfail for relays.mail-abuse.org[17:42:30] <rob0> and why SBL, why not Zen?[17:42:33] <rob0> !zen[17:42:33] <knoba> rob0: "zen" : http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/ : A composite of all Spamhaus DNSBLs: SBL, XBL and PBL. Testing your DNSBL lookup can be done here: http://www.crynwr.com/spam/[17:43:04] <Seifer> I've read and apparently it shouldn't be too complicated, just add the second mx register on the DNS, and once it works, remove the other one[17:43:34] <Seifer> and make the adjustments on the new firewal to forward the port 25 of the public IP to the new relay[17:43:49] <patdk-wk> firewall, forward?[17:43:56] <Seifer> I'm trying to confirm If I'm missing something before I start testing[17:44:00] <patdk-wk> yuk nat[17:44:18] *** hallamigo has joined #postfix[17:44:20] <patdk-wk> that is not easy for us to do :([17:44:23] <j4jackj> yuck![17:44:27] <j4jackj> :(:(:([17:44:39] <patdk-wk> as you want to mirror another config[17:44:41] <patdk-wk> but update it[17:44:46] <patdk-wk> without an issue[17:44:52] <patdk-wk> so many parts to be sure of[17:44:58] <patdk-wk> this is what testing is for though[17:45:00] <Seifer> I'm not going to update yet[17:45:02] <patdk-wk> testing does produce logs[17:45:39] *** ChrisWi has left #postfix[17:45:42] <Monotoko> this MySQL query works (it's a bit horrid) when I run it from the MySQL prompt (replacing %u with all-mprc as my testing example) http://pastebin.com/JGzPdaL2 - however when I put it into postfix, postmap seems to choke on it: http://pastebin.com/zMYmeUrZ (and here is a redacted version of the emailmapall file: http://pastebin.com/Wegbzgp6)[17:46:15] <patdk-wk> that is a lot of pastebins[17:46:26] <Seifer> I know it does, for cthulhu's sake, but screwing up is not a requirement if you can just avoid it by asking a single question[17:46:42] *** kiri has quit IRC[17:46:57] <Monotoko> patdk-wk, sorry - it was the only way to really explain it since I'm using complex MySQL... but I don't think it's in the SQL itself since it runs fine in the console[17:47:29] <patdk-wk> what does console have to do with it being formatted correctly for postfix?[17:47:41] <patdk-wk> look at all those invalid %'s all over the place[17:48:10] <Monotoko> patdk-wk, nothing - but I can't see anything wrong... %u is valid isn't it?[17:48:13] <patdk-wk> and I don't think ; is valid[17:48:20] <patdk-wk> %u is valid[17:48:31] <patdk-wk> but is %/ valid? %'[17:49:34] <Monotoko> patdk-wk, ahhh that could be where it's tripping over, it's valid SQL but probably not valid for postfix, is there any way to escape them? (the ; at the end works in other maps)[17:49:46] <patdk-wk> !mysql_table[17:49:47] <knoba> patdk-wk: "mysql_table" : mysql_table(5) - Postfix MySQL client configuration. This man page defines the usage of sql in postfix configuration. http://www.postfix.org/mysql_table.5.html[17:50:11] <rob0> %% is a literal %[17:50:36] <Monotoko> just seen that in the man, thank you patdk-wk and rob0 :)[17:53:56] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[17:55:21] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[17:55:57] *** err-or has quit IRC[17:55:57] *** Bry8Star has quit IRC[17:57:14] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[17:58:24] *** err-or has joined #postfix[18:00:14] *** Bry8Star has joined #postfix[18:03:52] *** BooeyOH has joined #postfix[18:04:12] <BooeyOH> what happens to a request that gets blocked by anvil, does it come back in later?[18:04:14] *** smoores has joined #postfix[18:04:34] *** todd_dsm has joined #postfix[18:05:57] <smoores> I have an ancient piece of software that doesn't support any type of smtp auth. It successfully sends emails over 25 (no ssl) to e-mail addresses on my network but gets "relay access denied" sending to email addresses that aren't my domain. How can I whitelist the machine it runs on and allow it to send wherever?[18:06:34] <BooeyOH> do you want an open relay inside your network and NO open relay outside?[18:07:02] <smoores> i want that machine specifically which will always be inside my network to send e-mails to any domain outside of my network[18:07:15] <BooeyOH> without authenticating?[18:07:24] <smoores> correct, it doesn't support any type of auth[18:07:25] <BooeyOH> but outside the network you have to authenticate (which is how it is working now)?[18:07:50] <BooeyOH> I got that working in my config, not sure if it is best practice, but let me look real quick and I'll tell you how I got it[18:07:50] <smoores> yeah[18:08:44] <smoores> i use 465 inside my network with ssl to send period. but i enabled 25 only for mynetwork to work unauthed for this old software[18:08:45] *** magyar has joined #postfix[18:08:45] *** magyar has joined #postfix[18:08:45] <mjt> smoores: you just add its ip address into $mynetworks, which - as far as it is already inside your network - should already be there...[18:09:05] <mjt> !mynetworks[18:09:05] <knoba> mjt: "mynetworks" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: The list of "trusted" SMTP clients that can relay email.[18:09:10] <BooeyOH> Ok, I set up /etc/postfix/client_access.cidr with "XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/24 OK"[18:09:33] <BooeyOH> and added this "check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/client_access.cidr" to the beginning of my smtpd_recipient_restrictions[18:09:41] <BooeyOH> that is one way to do it at least :)[18:09:42] <smoores> mjt: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [::ffff:127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128[18:10:05] <mjt> BooeyOH: that's as easy as adding XXX.XXX.XXX into your mynetworks...[18:10:14] <mjt> BooeyOH: (without the last .XXX)[18:10:35] <BooeyOH> yeah, I thought I heard somewhere that mynetworks was deprecated or something, not sure why exacty it was recommended to me the way I ended up doing it[18:10:38] *** ChrisWi has joined #postfix[18:10:40] <BooeyOH> I always go with whatever works :)[18:10:46] * mjt always wondered why people use so complicated solutions when a trivial one exists...[18:10:59] <thumbs> huh[18:11:07] <thumbs> I don't recommend using mynetworks[18:11:11] <mjt> heh[18:11:20] <BooeyOH> maybe thumbs told me :)[18:11:27] <rob0> (and the last .XXX must be .0 or it fails)[18:11:35] <thumbs> other regulars here will say the same[18:11:48] <mjt> ;)[18:12:04] <rob0> well, the mynetwork aversion originated with lunaphyte_, and he does have a point[18:12:51] <mjt> i for one don't use relay_domains or mydestination or virtual_domains, and don't recommend anyone to use that... ;)[18:13:01] <mjt> the only thing i use is transport_maps[18:13:34] <mjt> for a complete mailservers farm, not just for a relay server[18:14:55] <smoores> rob0: so i cant use mynetworks to single out a single machine on my network?[18:15:00] <mjt> there are a few convinient things built into postfix which are easy to _understand_ and use. There's no need to use them ofcourse... ;)[18:15:44] <BooeyOH> Can anyone point me in the right direction for whitelisting for Anvil?[18:16:01] <ChrisWi> I want to debug incoming mail for a virtual user 'chris at domain dot com'. Can I do this with 'debug_peer_list domain.com' ?[18:16:36] <mjt> debug_peer_list applies to connecting _clients_[18:16:55] <mjt> that's a debug_PEER_list ;)[18:17:24] <mjt> BooeyOH: man smtpd, search for anvil[18:17:38] <BooeyOH> going there[18:17:41] <ChrisWi> ok, how can I debug for a 'recipient' ?[18:17:44] <mjt> BooeyOH: (and notice $mynetworks is already listd there :)[18:17:47] <mjt> listed*[18:17:52] <rob0> smoores, why do you think I said that? I did not.[18:18:25] <smoores> rob0: last .xxx must be 0 which mean 192.168.2.___ is whitelisted?[18:18:30] <BooeyOH> i did that and there were only 2 lines with anvil, both just giving a brief description of what it is[18:18:58] <mjt> BooeyOH: is that not enough? :)[18:19:11] <BooeyOH> mjt: unfortunately, not for me :([18:19:14] <mjt> actually there's one list of options related to anvil[18:19:20] <rob0> If you're going to use a CIDR expression, it must be a *valid* expression. .X/24 is not valid unless X=0.[18:19:50] <mjt> BooeyOH: what's unclear, exactly?[18:20:08] <BooeyOH> if I want to exclude certain IPs from rate limiting[18:20:11] <BooeyOH> how to do it[18:20:11] <mjt> BooeyOH: did you notice smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions?[18:20:25] <BooeyOH> looking for that in man pages for anvil, hang on[18:20:32] <mjt> heh[18:20:36] <BooeyOH> not there[18:20:40] <BooeyOH> http://www.postfix.org/anvil.8.html[18:20:42] <mjt> ping me if you'll find it there :)[18:20:49] <mjt> (which means it's a bug)[18:21:21] <adaptr> no. there will often be crossmention of important parameters[18:21:32] <mjt> indeed[18:21:35] <BooeyOH> Ok, I am definately confused then, if there is a way to allow ip addresses to "bypass" anvil, where would I find that if not the anvil manual[18:21:40] <rob0> crossadaptation[18:21:52] <BooeyOH> is this the exception to RTFM?[18:21:53] <adaptr> cross0robtation[18:21:54] <mjt> BooeyOH: man smtpd, search for anvil... but i repeat myself...[18:22:21] <mjt> BooeyOH: really, please read about the few parameters mentioned in there[18:22:49] <mjt> it's not a huge list to say tl;dr, it's just a 5 or so parameters... and i already mentioned the one which you need...[18:23:51] <mjt> i think i'm getting old to participate in discussions like this[18:24:06] *** worstadmin has quit IRC[18:24:14] <BooeyOH> mjt: my apologies, I see what you are saying, I was looking for a visual delineation for the data.[18:24:34] <mjt> either my expectations are too high or my language is too vague or my patience is too low... ;)[18:25:19] <mjt> (the trick was to point HOW to find, so the OP is able to help himself when he has another/next issue.)[18:25:35] <BooeyOH> my wife would tell you that is a lost cause for me[18:26:45] <adaptr> perhaps she did...[18:26:58] <BooeyOH> funny[18:27:04] <adaptr> <insert obligatory British leer>[18:27:11] <BooeyOH> should I be able to use a cidr file for the smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions....if I want to make it more complicated than it needs to be[18:27:16] <mjt> BooeyOH: now, that's pure logic. you see a "list" ("Clients that are..") -- it's a list, and it includes $mynetworks variable already, so everything you can use in $Mynetworks can be used in $smtpd_client_event_.._exceptions.. so you can list a single ip address or a hostname there, or a map, or...[18:27:21] <mjt> heh[18:27:26] <mjt> my typing is too slow today :)[18:27:31] <adaptr> boWHY do you think you need to make exceptions to anvil[18:27:37] <adaptr> bastd[18:27:38] <adaptr> bldy[18:27:40] <adaptr> brr[18:27:42] <adaptr> blegh[18:27:44] <adaptr> BOO[18:27:48] <adaptr> BooeyOH: YOU.[18:27:53] <lunaphyte_> my fault![18:27:57] <mjt> i'd say it's rude... ;)[18:27:58] <BooeyOH> adaptr: do you mean I should not do that?[18:28:00] <adaptr> WHY. WHy do you think anvil requires messery. from you.[18:28:20] <adaptr> I've NEVER seen it menhtioned in 3 years on the ML or here.[18:28:25] <adaptr> you'd have to be pounding the SHIT out of it.[18:28:30] <BooeyOH> because someone will ask me about it, and I want to be able to tell them the answer[18:28:34] <adaptr> millions per day[18:28:50] <adaptr> ...that makes no sense at all[18:28:51] <mjt> adaptr: please, can you ask you to pleas calm down just a bit?[18:28:53] <BooeyOH> plus someone thought it would be possibly be needed if they added it as an option[18:29:01] <BooeyOH> right?[18:29:02] <mjt> er.. s/you/I/ ;)[18:29:09] <adaptr> postfix has over 900 configuration parameters. I don't know what ALL of them do. there would never be a need to.[18:29:16] *** worstadmin has joined #postfix[18:29:19] <BooeyOH> interesting[18:29:49] <BooeyOH> all mocking aside, are you saying that in a typical setup, one would not need to mess with the default anvil settings to run optimally?[18:29:53] <mjt> actually most of them are more or less obvious just from the name[18:30:03] <mjt> lunaphyte_: out of curiocity, why you dislike $mynetworks?[18:30:07] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[18:30:09] <adaptr> the fact that most people who come here make erroneous assumption about the 50 MOST used ones is a large Hint.[18:30:27] *** NBG has joined #postfix[18:30:27] <adaptr> BooeyOH: come back when you handle 100000 messages per hour.[18:30:35] <adaptr> as an MTA, not a relay[18:30:45] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[18:30:46] <adaptr> THEWN, maybe, anvil becomes interesting.[18:31:19] <adaptr> it's the big equalizer, to prevent such poundery.[18:31:26] <adaptr> an-vil, geddit?[18:31:37] <BooeyOH> adaptr: I feel that I have offended your sensibilities[18:31:47] <adaptr> I wasn't aware I had any ![18:31:50] <BooeyOH> lol[18:32:04] <BooeyOH> can I ask you a serious question, I would love a quick answer and then I will be gone (for now)?[18:32:11] <adaptr> any regular would tell you I lack any such human attributes[18:32:25] *** freezey has quit IRC[18:32:40] <adaptr> that's what you're here for! I mean, that's what we're here for. so they keep telling me.[18:32:44] <BooeyOH> if my boss asks me why there is a log entry that anvil is blocking something, would it be safe to say in our sub 100000 message/day setup that it is a legimate thing[18:32:44] <adaptr> shoot[18:33:01] <adaptr> you could tell him to RTFM :)[18:33:04] <lunaphyte_> mjt: i prefer check_client_access, because it more specifically speaks to the impetus of task.[18:33:34] <lunaphyte_> use of mynetworks just seems to way too often get inexperienced folks off on the wrong foot, and seems to often encourage things that are less than ideal[18:33:38] <adaptr> the defaults for anvil are broad enough that there'd have to be over 60 CONNECTIONS per nminute from one source. that's one per second, every second, the entire minute.[18:33:42] <mjt> lunaphyte_: note that $mynetworks is in default values for many other parameters (such as the being-discussed smtpd_event_.._exceptions)[18:33:43] *** smoores has quit IRC[18:33:52] <adaptr> for an MTA, that's tantamount to be ing hammered[18:33:55] <adaptr> *being[18:33:58] <lunaphyte_> yeah. that's part of the reason why[18:34:40] <lunaphyte_> my preference [and it's what i encourage others to do as well] is to have mynetworks empty period.[18:34:45] <adaptr> BooeyOH: note that there can be many SMTP conversations in one connection, and many messages in one conversation/[18:34:57] <BooeyOH> adaptr: that makes sense. I was confused, because my log says "max connection rate 1/60s for .....", so I thought it was rejecting anything that requested more than once a minute, that seemed excessive[18:35:29] <adaptr> it does say that, yes. now actually read the damn log. it SAYS that. it's a statement of fact.[18:35:59] <adaptr> if there are consequences, it will certainly log them. there are no consequences for you. not for a long time.[18:36:26] <adaptr> BooeyOH: just FYI, we frown on supplying anything short of VERBATIM log messages here.[18:37:27] <BooeyOH> got it, http://pastebin.com/ueFpVqWu[18:37:51] <BooeyOH> so that is saying if anyone tries to make a smtp conneciton more than 1/minute it will reject it?[18:37:56] <adaptr> so where is the error ?[18:38:01] <BooeyOH> I don't think there is one[18:38:08] <BooeyOH> my co-worker asked me what that is doing[18:38:10] <adaptr> you know there is no error.[18:38:12] <BooeyOH> and I am trying to understand it[18:38:15] <BooeyOH> right[18:38:22] <adaptr> you know there is no error because there is, in fact, no error.[18:38:38] *** bungalo has quit IRC[18:38:45] <BooeyOH> you know that, but I am just learning that[18:38:52] <BooeyOH> there point to you[18:39:03] <adaptr> this is actually documented[18:39:10] <adaptr> how to read the postfix log[18:39:16] <BooeyOH> really?[18:39:21] <BooeyOH> ok, i will look for that[18:39:23] <BooeyOH> thank you[18:39:30] <adaptr> the order of importance is PANIC FATAL ERROR WARNING INFO/STATS[18:39:53] <lunaphyte_> don't forget FRIENDLYGESTURES[18:39:55] <adaptr> you're reading the least important log level.[18:40:00] <adaptr> lunaphyte_: panto ?[18:40:06] <lunaphyte_> :)[18:40:17] <BooeyOH> ooooooh[18:40:36] <BooeyOH> wait, are you you saying that is showing me that it is happening, not that anvil is blocking it?[18:40:51] <BooeyOH> forget it[18:40:53] <BooeyOH> thanks[18:40:55] <adaptr> the mesage means exactly what it says. it is logging statistics.[18:41:23] <lunaphyte_> "here are some statistics"[18:41:29] <adaptr> 23[18:41:39] <adaptr> also, my favourite - 42[18:42:13] <lunaphyte_> 27[18:42:20] <adaptr> no, that's a Lie.[18:42:24] <adaptr> not a statistic[18:42:29] <adaptr> close, but you know[18:42:30] <lunaphyte_> they all died at 27[18:42:45] <adaptr> all.. 27 of them ?[18:43:07] <adaptr> what will we do if they come up short ? kill random 27-year-old celebrities until reality matches up with our expectations ?[18:43:16] * adaptr is liking the plan so far[18:43:29] <lunaphyte_> hendrix, joplin, morrison, cobain, winehouse. others too[18:44:06] <adaptr> so we'll need at least 22 more. okay.[18:44:44] *** wdp has joined #postfix[18:45:23] <adaptr> wikipedia has 12082 pages of people born in 1986. let's make us a List![18:46:03] <adaptr> wasn't richie valens also in that club ?[18:47:05] <adaptr> and please can Miley Cyrus be on the list ?[18:47:08] <adaptr> please please[18:47:17] <lunaphyte_> haha[18:47:20] <lunaphyte_> poor miley cyrus.[18:47:29] <adaptr> ...not really[18:47:30] <lunaphyte_> trying so hard to be unique.[18:47:36] *** BooeyOH has quit IRC[18:47:36] <lunaphyte_> richie valens, i'm not sure[18:48:10] <lunaphyte_> oh man. he was 17.[18:48:16] <lunaphyte_> i had no idea he was that young[18:48:17] <adaptr> indeed[18:48:37] <adaptr> please, take miley cyrus, and give us richie back[18:49:16] <adaptr> take Timbersnake too, while you're at it.[18:49:34] <adaptr> I'll trade him for Hendrix[18:49:54] <lunaphyte_> good luck getting that trade[18:50:02] <adaptr> I'd probably trade a considerable number of modern-day "musicians" for Hendrix[18:50:09] <adaptr> dozens for sure[18:50:52] <adaptr> of course, it;'d be ironic to get him back 40 years older and have him drop dead taking his first bong hit - at 69[18:50:59] *** Cromulent has quit IRC[18:51:05] <adaptr> there'd be a whole new club then[18:51:50] <adaptr> hello ? is this thing still on?[18:51:59] * adaptr slinks away in search of $food[18:55:29] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[18:56:37] *** freezey has joined #postfix[18:57:35] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[18:58:32] *** err-or has quit IRC[18:59:27] *** err-or has joined #postfix[19:02:29] *** exos_ has joined #postfix[19:06:06] *** exos has quit IRC[19:06:28] *** mofino has joined #postfix[19:06:55] *** mofino has left #postfix[19:10:47] *** nickfennell has quit IRC[19:29:10] *** steven4455 has quit IRC[19:33:31] *** UQlev has joined #postfix[19:44:11] *** jelly has quit IRC[19:44:44] *** jelly has joined #postfix[19:50:48] *** freezey has quit IRC[19:51:22] *** ffiore has quit IRC[19:53:32] *** freezey has joined #postfix[19:54:52] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[19:58:26] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[19:59:11] *** monkwitdafunk has quit IRC[20:07:09] *** err-or has quit IRC[20:10:54] *** err-or has joined #postfix[20:14:07] *** monkwitdafunk has joined #postfix[20:14:37] *** monkwitdafunk has joined #postfix[20:15:14] *** monkwitdafunk has joined #postfix[20:33:29] *** freezey has quit IRC[20:35:18] *** freezey has joined #postfix[20:38:36] *** UQlev has quit IRC[20:55:21] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[20:58:54] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[21:07:45] *** waflessnet has joined #postfix[21:12:41] *** worstadmin has quit IRC[21:17:36] *** zerick has joined #postfix[21:23:25] *** worstadmin has joined #postfix[21:29:25] *** Ex0deus has joined #postfix[21:31:50] *** mf2hd has quit IRC[21:33:50] *** hallamigo has quit IRC[21:34:18] *** hallamigo has joined #postfix[21:37:18] *** cesspit has quit IRC[21:38:07] *** mf2hd has joined #postfix[21:38:20] *** freezey has quit IRC[21:47:21] *** freezey has joined #postfix[21:56:42] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[21:59:07] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[22:02:22] *** Section1 has quit IRC[22:03:21] *** freezey has quit IRC[22:19:21] *** higuita has quit IRC[22:24:59] *** LedHed has quit IRC[22:27:31] *** LedHed has joined #postfix[22:28:04] *** monkwitdafunk has quit IRC[22:29:16] *** higuita has joined #postfix[22:30:20] *** chatran has joined #postfix[22:31:16] <chatran> hello guys, i want implement here the "return confirmation" on postfix, only returned can send e-mails to our server[22:31:31] <chatran> anyone know how i can do this ?[22:31:47] *** worstadmin has quit IRC[22:32:15] <lunaphyte_> i don't know what you mean[22:32:58] <chatran> lunaphyte_ let me try again... to combat spam we will only accept e-mails from our contacts[22:33:32] <chatran> and we can accept from new contacts if the new contact answer our reply e-mail[22:34:19] <rob0> oh no. Challenge-response is BAD news. It's both abusive and foolish at the same time.[22:34:39] <chatran> rob0 why is bad ?[22:34:56] <rob0> Google Challenge-response and find a lot of the things you did not think about.[22:35:01] <chatran> ok[22:35:04] <chatran> let me see[22:35:13] <rob0> There are better ways to deal with spam ...[22:35:20] <rob0> !cheatsheet[22:35:20] <knoba> rob0: "cheatsheet" : (#1) http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.txt : A HOWTO for pre-DATA spam control., or (#2) A postscreen cheatsheet can be seen at http://rob0.nodns4.us/postscreen.html[22:36:09] <chatran> oh[22:36:11] *** worstadmin has joined #postfix[22:36:18] <chatran> lets search about thanks rob0[22:41:08] <chatran> rob0 , well i have a lot of spam protection like this cheatsheet[22:41:18] *** ChrisWi has quit IRC[22:41:32] <chatran> but here on brasil people can pay for "professional spammers"[22:41:46] <chatran> this politics doesent work here[22:42:11] <chatran> professional spammer here is very common[22:42:32] <chatran> all internet providers can do "marketing e-mails"[22:43:16] <chatran> i need to accept e-mails from some spam hosts[22:43:41] *** steven4455 has joined #postfix[22:43:48] <chatran> people here use the same domain that they do spams[22:44:16] <chatran> they can send spams and they use the domain spammer to talk[22:44:39] <chatran> i just want accept e-mail for 1 user of a lot spammer domains[22:45:17] <chatran> is extremely hard fight against this practice[22:45:58] <chatran> i need to accept even if domain is blalisted[22:46:01] <chatran> blacklisted[22:46:24] <chatran> but need accept just from that user[22:46:56] *** LedHed has quit IRC[22:48:37] *** aarcane has quit IRC[22:49:02] *** aarcane has joined #postfix[22:49:28] *** LedHed has joined #postfix[22:50:53] *** freezey has joined #postfix[22:55:16] *** andreiiar has quit IRC[22:56:38] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[22:59:08] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[23:00:56] *** Southron has left #postfix[23:06:42] *** Seifer has quit IRC[23:14:29] <adaptr> trivial[23:14:37] <adaptr> !tell chatran access[23:14:37] <knoba> chatran: "access" : http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html : An overview of access(5) controls in the Postfix smtpd(8) SMTP server.[23:16:18] *** freezey has quit IRC[23:19:05] *** exos has joined #postfix[23:21:31] *** freezey has joined #postfix[23:21:48] *** exos_ has quit IRC[23:21:54] *** freezey has quit IRC[23:30:08] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[23:30:26] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[23:32:38] *** sharky has quit IRC[23:33:04] *** sharky has joined #postfix[23:40:48] *** s0ber has quit IRC[23:42:40] *** s0ber has joined #postfix[23:50:33] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[23:55:07] *** smue has joined #postfix[23:57:42] *** wdp has quit IRC[23:58:58] *** LedHed has quit IRC