October 28, 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 28, 2013 [00:01:00] <likyng> anyway, seems like postfix sends a mail every frickin min. to the http user. I thought it was some cron job[00:01:24] *** mastr[x]bennett has joined #postfix[00:01:27] *** freezey has joined #postfix[00:01:30] <likyng> but apparently crontab is empty and /etc/cron.d/0hourly's MAILTO= property is set to empty[00:01:42] <likyng> any idea how i could debug that?[00:01:44] *** freezey has quit IRC[00:02:42] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[00:04:11] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[00:04:28] <twb> You realize "every frickin min" does not correspond to "hourly", right?[00:04:51] <twb> Try reading the logs to see at least which user is generating the mail[00:05:06] <twb> Or if the mails are in the spool, just look at them[00:06:13] *** err-or has joined #postfix[00:06:58] <likyng> well the 0hourly cron file contains the jobs executed less than every hour i think[00:08:09] <likyng> they are send by the http user to the http user[00:08:25] <likyng> and because of a cron job, i think[00:09:06] *** likyng has quit IRC[00:09:55] *** nb__ has joined #postfix[00:10:49] *** nb__ is now known as likyng[00:11:28] <jimpop> likyng: prove it by following /topic[00:12:46] <likyng> !getting_help[00:12:47] <knoba> likyng: "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.[00:13:15] <likyng> yes sorry, i'll dig it out[00:15:56] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[00:30:24] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[00:33:57] *** Pegasus_RPG has quit IRC[00:49:50] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[00:52:28] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[01:01:07] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[01:01:18] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[01:02:02] *** freezey has joined #postfix[01:06:41] *** freezey has quit IRC[01:19:18] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[01:21:10] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[01:29:25] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[01:30:27] *** jarif has quit IRC[01:32:11] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[01:34:43] *** _zerick_ has joined #postfix[01:36:24] *** treaki__ has joined #postfix[01:40:45] *** treaki_ has quit IRC[01:45:14] *** Dave123 has quit IRC[01:50:06] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[01:53:15] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[01:57:31] *** heller_barde has joined #postfix[01:57:48] <heller_barde> hi[01:57:58] <heller_barde> !welcome[01:57:58] <knoba> heller_barde: "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![01:59:02] <heller_barde> !getting_help[01:59:03] <knoba> heller_barde: "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.[02:01:58] *** Dave123 has joined #postfix[02:02:57] *** freezey has joined #postfix[02:03:01] <heller_barde> what is the benefit (or detriment) for putting configuration into master.cf instead of main.cf? (it is common in debian default configs for postfix.)[02:03:17] <lunaphyte> what do you mean "common"?[02:03:26] <lunaphyte> global settings go in main.cf.[02:03:38] <heller_barde> in the last 2 versions it was like that. I didnt dig farther back.[02:04:12] <lunaphyte> overrides to global settings for specific services go in master.cf[02:04:22] <heller_barde> hmm.[02:04:54] <lunaphyte> generally speaking, a competent admin's goal is to keep mucking with master.cf to a minimum.[02:05:08] <heller_barde> that was my thought as well.[02:05:35] <heller_barde> so it would make sense to put the smtpd_sasl_type in main.cf? or does that interfere with the normal smtpd use of accepting mail that ends at my server?[02:06:13] <lunaphyte> there are a number of mechanisms to provide for flexibility of service specific overrides while confining the bulk of modifications to main.cf[02:06:27] <lunaphyte> smtpd_sasl_type should be in main.cf, yes.[02:07:21] <lunaphyte> the only reason you'd put that in master.cf would be if you had different services using different sasl types, and that would be almost certainly dumb.[02:07:59] *** freezey has quit IRC[02:08:32] <heller_barde> okay. this is my 3rd time configuring a mail server and I think I finally get to a point where I feel confident to actually open it to the interwebs :)[02:08:40] <heller_barde> *internet.[02:09:00] <lunaphyte> it only needs to be used if you're using dovecot rather than cyrus anyway. if you're using cyrus, you'd simply omit the parameter completely from your config.[02:09:09] <heller_barde> thanks for the information lunaphyte[02:09:16] <lunaphyte> you're welcome.[02:09:17] <heller_barde> okay. yeah i am using dovecot.[02:09:50] <lunaphyte> presumably you have a properly configured submission service in place and are not offering smtp auth on port 25?[02:10:16] <heller_barde> yes.[02:10:32] <lunaphyte> ah, very good.[02:10:33] <Patrickdk> na, I keep port 25 just for offering snickers bars[02:11:10] <heller_barde> that is actually why i was asking. i was trying to fully understand how the master.cf works.[02:11:34] <heller_barde> it starts smtpd on ports 25 (smtp) and 587 (submission) with different configuration parameters[02:11:35] <lunaphyte> well, you're welcome to pastebin your config as per the show_config factoid is you'd like to solicit feedback.[02:11:41] <lunaphyte> yes, correct.[02:11:58] <heller_barde> lunaphyte: tomorrow, maybe. now it is 2:10 in the morning and i should get some sleep[02:11:59] <lunaphyte> *if you'd[02:12:01] <heller_barde> thanks though.[02:12:17] <lunaphyte> ack. yes you should. unless you work third shift i guess.[02:12:34] <heller_barde> nah, i should actually get up at 6 :( probably not...[02:12:39] <heller_barde> cheers[02:13:38] *** heller_barde has quit IRC[02:17:52] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[02:44:04] *** mastr[x]bennett has quit IRC[02:50:46] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[02:53:15] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[02:54:03] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[02:54:56] *** Olipro has quit IRC[03:03:41] *** freezey has joined #postfix[03:03:58] *** freezey has quit IRC[03:19:08] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[03:24:40] *** ncp has joined #postfix[03:31:28] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[03:36:16] *** freezey has joined #postfix[03:36:54] *** freezey has quit IRC[03:37:22] *** freezey has joined #postfix[03:43:58] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[03:45:16] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[03:45:22] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[03:47:10] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[03:47:31] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[03:49:24] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[03:51:06] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[03:54:39] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[04:03:28] *** rowinofwin is now known as MIA_rowinofwin[04:27:49] *** MIA_rowinofwin is now known as rowinofwin[04:36:30] <thumbs> rowinofwin: can you pick a nickname and stick to it?[04:37:08] <thumbs> (away nicknames are silly)[04:37:55] *** freezey has quit IRC[04:38:31] *** freezey has joined #postfix[04:42:17] *** snearch has joined #postfix[04:42:55] *** freezey has quit IRC[04:43:03] *** err-or_ has joined #postfix[04:43:49] *** err-or has quit IRC[04:44:12] *** snearch has quit IRC[04:46:03] *** Motoko has joined #postfix[04:46:54] *** UQlev has joined #postfix[04:51:55] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[04:53:03] *** alnr has left #postfix[04:54:51] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[05:15:46] *** jarif has joined #postfix[05:43:40] *** Motoko has quit IRC[05:52:16] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[05:55:43] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[06:00:27] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[06:01:02] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[06:03:03] *** UQlev has quit IRC[06:12:05] *** cillybabe has quit IRC[06:13:34] *** cilly has joined #postfix[06:27:17] *** jarif has quit IRC[06:36:10] *** chrisp15 has joined #postfix[06:52:40] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[06:56:09] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[07:28:58] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[07:38:37] *** zorg1 has joined #postfix[07:47:32] *** jacekows1i is now known as jacekowski[07:53:05] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[07:56:23] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[08:14:46] *** wdp has joined #postfix[08:53:41] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[08:55:50] *** tharkun has quit IRC[08:57:29] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[09:05:14] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[09:05:21] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[09:08:36] *** tharkun has joined #postfix[09:11:19] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[09:13:04] *** sandvige has joined #postfix[09:14:48] *** twb has quit IRC[09:17:30] *** tharkun has quit IRC[09:19:23] *** tharkun has joined #postfix[09:19:47] *** [diablo] has joined #postfix[09:24:04] *** zorg1 has quit IRC[09:40:31] *** tjikkun_work has quit IRC[09:42:35] *** tjikkun_work has joined #postfix[09:54:06] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[09:54:52] *** Lidwa has quit IRC[09:56:06] *** cilly has left #postfix[09:57:19] *** Lidwa has joined #postfix[09:57:30] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[10:01:21] *** Zerberus has quit IRC[10:02:33] *** Zerberus has joined #postfix[10:03:14] *** mbc has quit IRC[10:19:26] *** patdk-wk has quit IRC[10:30:56] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[10:31:58] *** patdk-wk has joined #postfix[10:32:50] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[10:33:12] *** jarif has joined #postfix[10:41:48] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[10:48:54] *** koobs` has left #postfix[10:49:06] *** koobs has joined #postfix[10:50:22] *** zorg1 has joined #postfix[10:51:12] *** jelly has joined #postfix[10:51:43] *** ffiore has joined #postfix[10:51:54] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[10:54:42] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[10:57:31] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[10:58:03] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[10:58:14] *** cilly has joined #postfix[11:01:45] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[11:07:39] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[11:11:21] *** Mattias has joined #postfix[11:12:14] <Mattias> I'm trying to send a mail from commandline using sendmail from postfix. How can I explicitly set the subject? I'm doing something similar to this: command | sendmail -s "subject here somehow?" my at mail dot here[11:15:46] * Mattias has an idea[11:18:44] <Mattias> doing (echo "Subject:subject";command) | sendmail... instead[11:19:29] *** Bry8Star has quit IRC[11:20:57] <Zerberus> Mattias: use a CLI MUA, don't do wrong things[11:24:49] <higuita> Mattias: correct, you have to manually build/add the headers you want... or simply use mutt (echo "body " | mutt -s "$subject" -c $ccemail -a $attachment -- $toemail )[11:27:24] <Mattias> hm, maybe I should install mutt on the server[11:27:33] <Mattias> well, only the cron jobs will use this[11:31:14] <Tuxick> or simply use "mail" ?[11:31:19] <Tuxick> or sendEmail[11:36:33] <Mattias> Tuxick: mail doesn't seem to exist, sendEmail I haven't tried? checking it out now[11:36:54] <Mattias> sendemail doesn't exist either[11:39:49] * Tuxick coughs[11:41:48] <blueskin> if you aren't concerned about portability, you can use /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix[11:43:54] <Mattias> blueskin: isn't that what I already use?[11:44:26] <blueskin> well, typically people call it as /bin/mail[11:44:43] <Mattias> maybe I should just symlink it to mail[11:44:52] <Mattias> but then again, the real mail command doesn't work the same..[11:44:59] <Mattias> sendmail in postfix doesn't have "-s"[11:45:05] <blueskin> but I don't see how setting the subject isn't a problem. `echo $foo | mail -s "subject here" bar at example dot com`[11:45:11] <blueskin> you just have a weird version[11:45:13] <blueskin> must*[11:45:39] <Mattias> blueskin: well, I don't have a mail binary at all. and sendmail doesn't have a -s option[11:45:45] <blueskin> mine has -s on it - are you sure it's postfix's mailx at /bin/mail[11:45:49] <blueskin> alternatives --config mta[11:45:55] <blueskin> try that, set it to postfix's[11:46:52] <Mattias> blueskin: hm, is that mail symlinked to sendmail?[11:47:25] <blueskin> /bin/mail is symlinked to mailx, mailx is set to postfix's[11:47:31] <Mattias> oh, mailx[11:47:37] <Mattias> Which package is that from?[11:47:59] <Mattias> mailutils?[11:48:11] <Mattias> there's bsd-mailx too[11:49:17] <blueskin> for me, the package is just mailx[11:49:27] <blueskin> but that might be different for debian[11:50:38] <Mattias> yeah, ubuntu server, testing mailutils[11:50:54] <Mattias> great, now I have "mail"[11:51:14] <Mattias> thanks :)[11:55:13] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[11:59:03] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[12:02:22] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[12:10:55] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[12:11:11] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[12:16:49] *** dvee has joined #postfix[12:22:05] *** [diablo] has quit IRC[12:23:17] <dvee> Hello, I'm having an issue with DKIM. Hotmail is receiving my mails fine, and stating in the source that dkim=pass, but AOL is putting them in Junk, and it says dkim=fail. Source: http://pastebin.com/XNQpjGm8 Any help would be greatly appreciated :S[12:25:57] <blueskin> a test mail with the dkim signature header would be useful as we can't tell much from that[12:26:04] *** mastr[x]bennett has joined #postfix[12:27:27] <dvee> @blueskin sure thing, do you want to /q me a receiving e-mail?[12:33:08] <blueskin> dvee: sure, if you don't mind maybe waiting a bit as I am working[12:33:24] <dvee> No worries :D[12:49:00] *** Section1 has joined #postfix[12:54:09] *** iAsterisk has quit IRC[12:54:09] *** amospalla has quit IRC[12:54:09] *** thelamest has quit IRC[12:54:11] *** sputnik has quit IRC[12:54:11] *** sputnik has joined #postfix[12:54:12] *** sputnik has joined #postfix[12:54:26] *** _nalle_ has quit IRC[12:54:33] *** _nalle has joined #postfix[12:55:26] *** SMalametal has quit IRC[12:55:41] *** amospalla has joined #postfix[12:55:44] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[12:57:16] *** Dave123 has quit IRC[12:58:51] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[12:59:55] *** Dave123 has joined #postfix[12:59:55] *** cilly has left #postfix[13:02:31] *** iAsterisk has joined #postfix[13:03:44] <_val_> hi there. While inspecting the mail headers, I've discovered that there is the line MAIL FROM: <>. I assume this is not set but why? Reading http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html section "Limitations of address verification" explains the MAIL FROM <> header. How do I set this? Where is this setting found.[13:05:11] *** shinao1 has joined #postfix[13:07:44] <lunaphyte_> "...I've discovered..." - where?[13:08:07] <lunaphyte_> sometimes in email, an empty envelope sender is used. is there some problem you are trying to fix?[13:09:38] *** SMalametal has joined #postfix[13:10:16] *** thelamest has joined #postfix[13:12:51] <_val_> lunaphyte_: exactly. When I receive an email and look the source of the email, I see the From: <> is empty.[13:12:59] <rob0> "MAIL FROM:<>" is SMTP, RFC 5321; it is not a header (RFC 5322.)[13:13:04] <lunaphyte_> EVERY email?[13:13:13] <_val_> Some MTA do not accept our emails because our From: <> header is empty.[13:13:19] <lunaphyte_> please be less vague.[13:13:21] <lunaphyte_> show actual data[13:13:34] <rob0> aha, we are coming closer to an actual problem description.[13:13:59] <lunaphyte_> if you're receiving an email, then it's someone else who us using an empty envelope sender - not you.[13:14:04] <lunaphyte_> *who is[13:14:10] <rob0> Whatever it is that you are using to send mail should generate actual RFC 5322 emails.[13:15:25] <_val_> rob0: we use our own perl mail script. When we send an email using the script (this is a password reset script) to ourselves and we look at the source, we see FROM: <> is empty.[13:16:00] <lunaphyte_> ah, there you go. construct a proper message, yes.[13:16:19] <_val_> Also, when clients require to reset their password, the email is often if not always not sent.[13:16:40] <lunaphyte_> sounds like you need to debug that script[13:16:53] *** robinho86 has joined #postfix[13:17:14] <_val_> lunaphyte_: proper you mean? We set everything except the From: <> remains empty. I don't know if it's the script or the postfix server.[13:17:34] <lunaphyte_> dude.[13:17:38] *** shinao1 has quit IRC[13:17:49] <lunaphyte_> you'll need to show some actual data if you want more help[13:18:20] <lunaphyte_> inherently, meta questions can only go so far[13:18:51] *** Zerberus has quit IRC[13:19:27] *** Zerberus has joined #postfix[13:20:01] <_val_> lunaphyte_: working on it, just a sec.[13:20:58] <lunaphyte_> sounds good[13:20:58] <rob0> If your script is using sendmail(1), look at -r in the man page to set an envelope sender. That does not set a header sender, though. Sounds like a non-Postfix problem.[13:29:04] *** mastr[x]bennett has quit IRC[13:30:03] *** MaximusColourum has joined #postfix[13:40:47] *** smue has quit IRC[13:44:07] *** Olipro has joined #postfix[13:44:18] *** MaximusColourum has left #postfix[13:45:50] *** smue has joined #postfix[13:47:28] *** _zerick_ has quit IRC[13:54:04] *** _zerick_ has joined #postfix[13:56:05] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[13:59:37] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[14:03:57] *** Uranio has joined #postfix[14:04:24] *** Uranio has quit IRC[14:05:20] *** Uranio has joined #postfix[14:09:38] *** danialr has joined #postfix[14:12:17] *** uniquenick has joined #postfix[14:16:07] <dvee> Reposting my question with the full message source :D[14:16:26] <dvee> Hello, I'm having an issue with DKIM. Hotmail is receiving my mails fine, and stating in the source that dkim=pass, but AOL is putting them in Junk, and it says dkim=fail. Source: http://pastebin.com/cy5iwnwj -- Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks[14:16:50] <lunaphyte_> !dkimtest[14:16:50] <knoba> lunaphyte_: "dkimtest" : see !dkimcheck[14:17:01] <lunaphyte_> what does that test return?[14:19:36] <dvee> Urgh, banned from bot for failed attempts, not sure how to run the commands, I can get you some check-auth port25 results, one moment[14:20:12] <lunaphyte_> banned from bot for failed attempts? what do you mean?[14:20:16] <lunaphyte_> !dkimcheck[14:20:17] <knoba> lunaphyte_: "dkimcheck" : You can check your spf / dkim / domain-keys settings by sending an email to check-auth at verifier dot port25.com. It will auto-respond with some debug informations about your settings and spam-score. or you can use this wob site: http://www.myiptest.com/staticpages/index.php/DomainKeys-DKIM-SPF-Validator-test[14:20:21] <dvee> <knoba> You've given me 5 invalid commands within the last minute; I'm now ignoring you for 10 minutes.[14:20:28] <lunaphyte_> oh, in pm[14:20:51] <lunaphyte_> it's ok to interact with the bot in the channel, as long as you are not an annoyance.[14:21:07] <dvee> http://pastebin.com/ELjkQNpc[14:21:31] <rob0> see the bot's URL in /topic[14:22:05] <dvee> ah okay, that helps :P[14:22:34] <lunaphyte_> your spf record is quite redundant, btw[14:23:35] <dvee> How come? I don't really understand all this stuff too much, I've just been learning about it the last couple days to try make our mail a bit more 'deliverable'[14:23:53] <lunaphyte_> i guess you'll have to ask aol why they think there is "No valid DKIM header"[14:24:10] <lunaphyte_> mx a ip4:94.23.157.171 a:mail3.theawesome.co are all the same thing[14:24:22] <lunaphyte_> you're repeating the same piece of information three times.[14:24:35] <lunaphyte_> or four, rather[14:24:53] <lunaphyte_> oh, no, the "a" is actually different.[14:25:21] <lunaphyte_> so you have two pieces of information in your spf record, and you're repeating one of them three times.[14:25:57] *** Runkle has joined #postfix[14:26:04] <Runkle> hello.[14:26:34] <dvee> Okay thnaks for your help luna, I'll give AOL a message :D[14:26:35] *** danialr1 has joined #postfix[14:27:39] <Runkle> i've set mynetworks to be mynetworks = 10.33.33.0/24, 10.33.34.0/24, 127.0.0.0/8[14:27:55] *** danialr has quit IRC[14:28:18] <lunaphyte_> better to leave mynetworks empty and use proper smtp auth[14:28:47] <Runkle> but if i do postconf -d |grep mynetworks, the 10.33.34.0/24 is missing. possibly because this is setup via openvpn and not ifconfig, but as i understood it if you set this manually it would be fine.[14:28:58] <Runkle> nah, i want mynetworks this is a dev box residing behind a firewall.[14:29:08] <Runkle> and can only send to certain addresses. (headers get rewritten)[14:29:22] <lunaphyte_> then use check_client_access, not mynetworks.[14:30:09] <Runkle> okay, why does mynetworks exist?[14:30:23] <lunaphyte_> postfix has been around for a long time.[14:30:40] <lunaphyte_> backwards compatability is important for software[14:31:01] <Runkle> then it should work :P[14:31:19] <Runkle> i'm being faecitious here, but this is simple. i'd like to use mynetworks. have it done and just move on.[14:34:08] <lunaphyte_> i'm not sure what your question is[14:34:20] <lunaphyte_> you want your netblock compiled into the postfix defaults?[14:34:25] <lunaphyte_> *netblocks[14:35:01] *** mastr[x]bennett has joined #postfix[14:35:12] <Runkle> no. and now i understand my issue. i ran postconf -d. the -d was dumb of me.[14:35:25] <Runkle> so without the -d, my subnets show up properly :)[14:35:56] <Runkle> so thats good. however i'm trying to telnet to port 25 on that host from other hosts, but connection is getting refused so i gotta debug that.[14:36:02] <Runkle> iptables isn't running on that rig.[14:36:23] <lunaphyte_> port 25 isn't for mail submission. for that, you need port 587[14:36:34] <lunaphyte_> port 25 is for mail servers to talk to other mail servers.[14:38:03] *** olegfusion has joined #postfix[14:39:32] <Runkle> is it a wide misunderstanding that port 25 is used for mail submission? cause for 15 years i've been setting 25 as the outgoing port on my mail client.[14:40:15] <lunaphyte_> unfortunately, yes.[14:40:40] <Runkle> why does it work if it isn't what it is ifor?[14:41:18] <Runkle> (fyi, postfix isn't listening on 587 on localhost either. does it do that by default?)[14:41:25] <patdk-wk> cause that is how it used to be setup, pre-2000[14:41:29] <Runkle> word.[14:41:46] <patdk-wk> and once people learn something, they never continue to improve[14:41:52] <lunaphyte_> submission has been a defined standard for 15 years, yet there continues to be pervasive ignorance. at this point, it's little more than a sad commentary[14:42:03] <lunaphyte_> smtps is perhaps a close second.[14:43:17] <patdk-wk> if your on a closed network, by all means do what you want, but it just won't work over the internet, very well[14:43:17] *** [diablo] has joined #postfix[14:43:38] <lunaphyte_> yes, but i even disagree with that, on principle.[14:43:51] <Runkle> yeah for this insstance i'm not concerned.[14:43:52] <lunaphyte_> there is no reason to not do things right even if interoperability is not a concern.[14:44:06] <Runkle> its really just to let java apps have a place to send mail where i control where the mail goes.[14:44:22] *** dvee has quit IRC[14:44:32] <lunaphyte_> it's trivial to do things right, and set an example for others to follow.[14:44:40] <Runkle> ok. good point.[14:45:39] <lunaphyte_> [hence check_client_access not mynetworks] ;)[14:45:45] <Runkle> yup.[14:47:49] *** rarasd has joined #postfix[14:48:54] *** rsc has joined #postfix[14:49:04] <lunaphyte_> to go one step further, proper submission should be the ultimate goal[14:49:19] <Runkle> will look at that next.[14:49:49] <lunaphyte_> a number of benefits can be derived from use of smtp auth, even in a private/development environment.[14:50:45] <Runkle> oh?[14:50:51] *** uniquenick has quit IRC[14:50:53] <Runkle> like auditing or?[14:51:19] <rsc> Uhm...even this is not really Postfix I see some possibility to get a good answer here: Does somebody have a configuration example how to allow "UNDECIPHERABLE" attachments (if globally blocked in amavisd-new) in amavisd-new configuration for only some specific senders or recipients (inbound, thus everything comes via the same amavisd-new port)[14:52:37] <lunaphyte_> auditing, modularity, fine grained access control, others...[14:53:01] <lunaphyte_> rsc: /join #amavis[14:53:04] *** dvee has joined #postfix[14:54:01] <Runkle> hrm, my main.cf didn't even have smtp_recipient_restrictions in it anywhere.[14:54:09] <Runkle> that would explain probably why mynetworks wasn't working.[14:54:17] <lunaphyte_> you don't need smtp_recipient_restrictions[14:54:36] <lunaphyte_> oops, nvm.[14:54:38] <lunaphyte_> i misread that.[14:54:58] <Runkle> well, i'm trying to understand where check_client_access goes and google results tend to lead in that direction.[14:55:08] <lunaphyte_> fingers are faster than brain sometimes.[14:55:17] <lunaphyte_> yes, it goes in smtp_recipient_restrictions[14:55:32] <Runkle> or smtpd_client_restrictions apparently.[14:55:38] <lunaphyte_> no[14:55:44] <Runkle> yes.[14:55:48] <Runkle> i'm looking right at the docs that say that.[14:55:56] <lunaphyte_> smtpd_client_restrictions can [and almost always should] be left empty.[14:56:03] <Runkle> ok.[14:56:20] <rob0> *smtpd_recipient_restrictions[14:56:31] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[14:56:32] <lunaphyte_> right[14:56:41] <lunaphyte_> oh.[14:56:43] <lunaphyte_> heh.[14:57:00] <lunaphyte_> that's what my brain was trying to tell me i guess. i missed that :)[14:57:03] <Runkle> okay, lets start from the first.[14:57:17] <Runkle> check_client_access is what you suggest i use instead of mynetworks, right?[14:57:24] <lunaphyte_> right[14:57:59] <Runkle> on this page : http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html check_client_access shows up under smptd_client_restrictions not smtpd_recipient_restrictions[14:58:14] <rob0> If you plan to use a check_client_access lookup to allow relayiong, it MUST go in smtpd_recipient_restrictions[14:58:24] <Runkle> why is it not in the docs for that ?[14:58:28] <rob0> !tell Runkle access[14:58:29] <knoba> Runkle: "access" : http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html : An overview of access(5) controls in the Postfix smtpd(8) SMTP server.[14:58:32] <rob0> it is[14:58:47] <lunaphyte_> read the description of smtpd_recipient_restrictions[14:58:57] <rob0> !smtpd_relay_restrictions[14:58:58] <knoba> rob0: "smtpd_relay_restrictions" : Restrictions to control relaying, implemented in Postfix 2.10. Prior to 2.10 smtpd_recipient_restrictions included this functionality. See !access and http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_relay_restrictions[14:59:16] <Runkle> ok[14:59:22] <lunaphyte_> specifically, "Other restrictions that are valid in this context: "Generic restrictions that can be used in any SMTP command context, described under smtpd_client_restrictions. SMTP command specific restrictions described under smtpd_client_restrictions, smtpd_helo_restrictions and smtpd_sender_restrictions. "[14:59:51] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[14:59:54] <Runkle> ok[15:01:48] <rob0> check_client_access in smtpd_client_restrictions will NOT allow relaying, because smtpd_client_restrictions cannot do that.[15:02:09] <rob0> SMTPD_ACCESS_README 'splains it all.[15:02:16] <Runkle> in there nowl[15:02:45] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[15:03:35] <rob0> BTW mynetworks does work, it's just kind of sloppy.[15:03:46] <Runkle> i've been told.[15:05:49] <lunaphyte_> mmm, sloppy joes.[15:13:24] <Runkle> alright.. am i doing something wrong.. i'm at http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html and the text check_client_access is not there anywhere.[15:14:18] <lunaphyte_> SMTPD_ACCESS_README is an overview, with a few select examples for illustrative purposes.[15:14:56] <Runkle> ok.[15:16:15] <Runkle> is postfix 2.6 before or oafter 2.10? i'm guessing before.[15:16:16] *** tris has quit IRC[15:16:37] <rob0> way before, yes, 6 < 10[15:16:42] *** rarasd has left #postfix[15:16:45] *** tris has joined #postfix[15:16:49] <Runkle> good ole redhat.[15:17:29] <lunaphyte_> redhat abuses integers?[15:17:41] <Runkle> no, 2.6 is current on 6.4[15:17:49] <lunaphyte_> oh, that old gag.[15:17:50] <lunaphyte_> yes.[15:18:09] <lunaphyte_> some distros seem to embrace the gimmick of shipping old abandoned software[15:18:25] <Tuxick> yup[15:18:47] <Runkle> yeah, i'm sort of on the edge of using redhat only for my oracle machines and going 'buntu for the rest.[15:18:55] <rob0> Well, look at the bright side. Instead of the rock-solid, stable Postfix 2.10, you have an old, stable version of Postfix, nearing or past upstream EOL. But at least you have a bleeding edge and bugridden version of openssl![15:18:59] <Runkle> as time permits and all that. which right now it doens't.[15:19:22] <lunaphyte_> realy though, too much emphasis is placed on artificial constraints to only distro provided software.[15:19:33] <rob0> RH are hypocrites, plain and simple.[15:21:28] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[15:21:32] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[15:21:57] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[15:25:25] <patdk-wk> redhat wants to be stable, can't blame them too much, but they do tent not to update software ever[15:25:52] <patdk-wk> it just becomes a burden to update all that software myself, so I left them[15:27:26] *** freezey has joined #postfix[15:27:44] <rob0> I blame them for shipping ancient Postfix with bleeding edge and bugridden openssl! If they were really after "stable" why not stick with old openssl?[15:28:29] <Runkle> cause new ssl probably has a feature that one of their intermal softwares that they sell needed ?[15:29:07] <patdk-wk> rob0, that is what I mean[15:29:18] <patdk-wk> some things they will seem to throw in, without testing[15:29:28] <patdk-wk> and others they won't upgrade, cause they don't seem to have time to test[15:29:46] <patdk-wk> given years of time between for it to get fleshed out[15:30:32] <Runkle> i either have the mondays or i'm just stupid. i can't figure out the syntax for this[15:30:40] <patdk-wk> but considering someone has a rh, why bother us? just call redhat, that is why your paying support[15:31:18] <Runkle> because i'm actually on centos :P[15:31:29] <patdk-wk> if that is the case, you just suck :)[15:32:13] <patdk-wk> the only usecase I see with centos, is for dev systems[15:32:24] <Runkle> yeah.. which is what this is :P[15:34:08] *** danialr1 has left #postfix[15:34:37] *** Runkle has left #postfix[15:35:11] <lunaphyte_> the problem is the nonsense invented notion that "being stable" somehow equates to not running current versions of software.[15:35:11] *** chrisp15 has quit IRC[15:37:03] <jelly> lunaphyte_: tell that to any distributor, they're going to laugh[15:37:28] <patdk-wk> they are going to laugh, cause they can't be bothered to spend time on it[15:37:30] <patdk-wk> :)[15:37:38] <lunaphyte_> any distributor?[15:37:41] <lunaphyte_> not sure what you mean[15:37:44] <jelly> your precious software component is not alone on the system and bugs happen in interaction[15:37:52] <patdk-wk> debian is pretty good about this[15:38:02] <patdk-wk> cause one small group of people don't manage it[15:38:23] <jelly> they still stick to one version of Postfix during the lifetime of a release[15:39:38] <lunaphyte_> some do, yes.[15:39:49] <jelly> lunaphyte_: what I mean is: introducing a newer version into a well known set introduces new behaviour and bugs[15:39:51] <lunaphyte_> some other drag out "release lifetimes" quite far.[15:39:56] <lunaphyte_> *some also[15:40:24] <lunaphyte_> anyway, we don't need to rehash this discussion yet again, unless there is some as yet unknown revalation to offer.[15:40:36] <lunaphyte_> we all know quite well how various distros behave.[15:40:44] <jelly> nod. I just objected to "nonsense invented notion"[17:50:18] *** echelog has joined #postfix[18:01:16] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[18:04:59] *** _zerick_ has quit IRC[18:07:00] *** sharky_ has joined #postfix[18:08:30] *** sharky has quit IRC[18:12:00] *** mastr[x]bennett has quit IRC[18:13:22] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[18:21:20] *** sharky has joined #postfix[18:24:14] *** sharky_ has quit IRC[18:24:25] *** sphenxes has quit IRC[18:25:37] *** dvee has quit IRC[18:25:59] *** sphenxes has joined #postfix[18:30:11] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[18:30:47] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[18:41:17] *** Phoenixz has joined #postfix[18:53:22] *** honestly has joined #postfix[18:53:46] <honestly> I just received an email with this header: http://paste.ubuntu.com/6319571/[18:54:15] <honestly> took me some time to understand it's clearly a scam mail[18:54:56] <honestly> is there a way to block the bogus client identification?[18:55:22] <honestly> and is it useful to do that or do "legitimate" MTAs screw that up as well?[19:01:30] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[19:06:57] *** Cromulent has quit IRC[19:07:04] *** wdp_ has joined #postfix[19:11:23] *** RayzrShrp has left #postfix[19:15:03] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[19:29:27] *** jY has joined #postfix[19:30:27] <jY> not sure this is the place to ask.. but if the dns lookup count for spf goes above 10.. will postfix reject based on the all rule if its set to hard reject or will it just stop at 10 and use the ips/networks it finds before it gets to 10[19:38:02] <pj> you're right, this is not the place to ask, because postfix does not do SPF lookups.[19:41:47] <pj> honestly: please show postfix logs of the original message passing through postfix.[19:41:54] <pj> !tell honestly relevant_logs[19:41:54] <knoba> honestly: "relevant_logs" : Relevant logs are mail.* syslog Postfix logs (NOT verbose, see !verbose) which show the entire handling of a single mail which illustrates the issue with which you want help. Random selections from your mail log might not do. IMAP/POP3 daemons and external delivery agents typically log to the same facility (mail); those are usually not relevant here.[19:42:04] <pj> ...and while you're at it[19:42:09] <pj> !tell honestly getting_help[19:42:09] <knoba> honestly: "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.[19:47:09] *** sandvige has quit IRC[19:57:19] <honestly> there's nothing interesting in mail.log, but sure: http://paste.ubuntu.com/6319924/[19:58:58] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[19:59:07] <lunaphyte_> you're not using basic antispam controls, nor postscreen. setting those two things up would be step one.[19:59:49] <lunaphyte_> there is the distinct possibility that after doing so, such mail will be inherently rejected.[20:02:31] *** ffiore has quit IRC[20:02:35] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[20:03:11] <honestly> basic antispam controls?[20:03:22] <honestly> reading up on postscreen now[20:08:21] *** jarif has quit IRC[20:09:05] <lunaphyte_> !cheatsheet[20:09:05] <knoba> lunaphyte_: "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[20:10:51] *** jY has left #postfix[20:15:36] *** master_of_master has joined #postfix[20:18:48] *** master_o1_master has quit IRC[20:19:32] <honestly> how do I get my postfix' buildinfo? there doesn't seem to be anything like --version[20:19:53] <lunaphyte_> postconf mail_version[20:20:03] <lunaphyte_> oh. what do you mean build info?[20:20:21] <honestly> like whether it's compiled with pcre[20:20:32] <lunaphyte_> postconf -m[20:20:59] <honestly> hmm, it says 'regexp', but not pcre[20:21:15] <honestly> does that mean I have to adjust the anti-uce stuff?[20:25:45] *** zulcc has joined #postfix[20:27:34] <zulcc> im running postfix 2.10.0,1 and i keep getting failure notices send to addresses at my domain, they say delivering unauthorized mail is prohibited to [foreign server]. I have the feeling my setup allows unauthorized users to send mail. Where can i configure this behaviour?[20:27:47] <zulcc> s/send/sent[20:28:07] *** wdp_ has quit IRC[20:29:55] <pj> honestly: correct, if there is no pcre then postfix was not built with pcre support, however I think that debian postfix has loadable modules for that sort of thing, you probably just have to install a package such as postfix-pcre or something.[20:30:31] <honestly> of course (:[20:30:38] *** dekae has quit IRC[20:30:39] <pj> !tell zulcc getting_help[20:30:39] <knoba> zulcc: "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.[20:31:16] *** Eagleman has quit IRC[20:31:48] *** moparisthebest_ has joined #postfix[20:31:55] *** wdp has quit IRC[20:31:57] *** hparker has quit IRC[20:31:58] *** eusto_ has joined #postfix[20:32:20] <zulcc> !relevant_logs[20:32:20] <knoba> zulcc: "relevant_logs" : Relevant logs are mail.* syslog Postfix logs (NOT verbose, see !verbose) which show the entire handling of a single mail which illustrates the issue with which you want help. Random selections from your mail log might not do. IMAP/POP3 daemons and external delivery agents typically log to the same facility (mail); those are usually not relevant here.[20:32:26] *** master_o1_master has joined #postfix[20:32:28] *** master_of_master has quit IRC[20:32:32] *** Phoenixz has quit IRC[20:32:33] *** howitdo has quit IRC[20:32:33] *** eusto has quit IRC[20:32:50] *** Eagleman has joined #postfix[20:32:56] <zulcc> is this a postfix issue or a courier issue?[20:32:57] *** fling has quit IRC[20:33:08] *** Phoenixz has joined #postfix[20:33:10] *** moparisthebest has quit IRC[20:33:18] *** fling has joined #postfix[20:33:30] <pj> I can't say what it is without seeing relevant logs.[20:33:48] *** donmichelangelo has quit IRC[20:34:24] <zulcc> !showconfig[20:34:24] <knoba> zulcc: "showconfig" : when asked to provide your config, pastebin postconf -nf and postconf -Mf. if your version is too old for those commands to work (< 2.9), you should upgrade, but see !showconfig_old[20:35:03] *** donmichelangelo has joined #postfix[20:35:42] *** colo-work has quit IRC[20:36:19] *** dekae has joined #postfix[20:38:39] *** colo-work has joined #postfix[20:41:57] *** hparker has joined #postfix[20:42:47] *** wdp has joined #postfix[20:44:33] *** howitdo has joined #postfix[21:01:59] *** Section1 has quit IRC[21:02:34] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[21:08:33] *** jarif has joined #postfix[21:16:03] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[21:23:08] *** wdp has quit IRC[21:23:48] *** wdp has joined #postfix[21:23:49] *** wdp has joined #postfix[21:25:04] *** Uranio has quit IRC[21:36:12] *** zerick has quit IRC[21:42:49] *** likyng has quit IRC[22:00:01] *** davlefou__ has joined #postfix[22:03:33] *** davlefou_ has quit IRC[22:05:56] *** Jaac has joined #postfix[22:09:22] *** Jaac has quit IRC[22:16:45] *** mohamed has joined #postfix[22:21:04] *** robinho86 has left #postfix[22:22:36] *** jarif has quit IRC[22:29:09] *** lrpcuba2 has joined #postfix[22:31:31] *** lrpcuba2 has left #postfix[22:33:14] *** higuita has quit IRC[22:34:44] *** jarif has joined #postfix[22:41:16] *** higuita has joined #postfix[22:43:12] *** olegfusion has quit IRC[22:53:46] *** lrpcuba2 has joined #postfix[22:55:22] <lrpcuba2> hello , why my smtp server is giving me this error with my local accounts (im not using virtual domains) Temporary lookup failure any ideas?[22:59:24] *** Motoko has joined #postfix[23:00:31] *** davlefou_ has joined #postfix[23:01:04] <pj> !tell lrpcuba2 getting_help[23:01:04] <knoba> lrpcuba2: "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.[23:03:49] <lrpcuba2> knoba 1 sec[23:04:32] *** davlefou__ has quit IRC[23:06:56] <lrpcuba2> knoba http://pastebin.com/P43ZDuPD there is[23:10:09] *** Dave123 has quit IRC[23:10:50] <lrpcuba2> !showconfig[23:10:50] <knoba> lrpcuba2: "showconfig" : when asked to provide your config, pastebin postconf -nf and postconf -Mf. if your version is too old for those commands to work (< 2.9), you should upgrade, but see !showconfig_old[23:11:56] *** jarif has quit IRC[23:12:07] <lrpcuba2> !showconfig_old[23:12:08] <knoba> lrpcuba2: "showconfig_old" : for versions of postfix < 2.9, pastebin postconf -n and the contents of master.cf with comments removed[23:14:47] *** mohamed has quit IRC[23:20:38] *** eagles0513875 has quit IRC[23:20:49] *** err-or_ has quit IRC[23:21:45] *** err-or has joined #postfix[23:26:05] *** eagles0513875 has joined #postfix[23:43:51] *** Kunda has joined #postfix[23:46:11] *** lrpcuba2 has quit IRC