I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang
to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1. Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3? Thanks, Kirk Bocek |
Kirk Bocek:
> I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang > to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I > can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1. What is the error message? Sheesh. Wietse |
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Kirk Bocek: >> I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang >> to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I >> can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1. > > What is the error message? Sheesh. Well, don't get huffy about it... :) When I add the MIMEDefang socket to smtpd_milters, nothing happens: no error messages and modifications are not made. After adding MIMEDefang to non_smptd_milters I see: May 8 10:45:50 server2 mimedefang[10887]: MIMEDefang-2.64: st_optionneg[1077942592]: 0x3d does not fulfill action requirements 0x3f May 8 10:45:50 server2 postfix/cleanup[10897]: warning: milter unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.soc k: can't read SMFIC_OPTNEG reply packet header: Success May 8 10:45:50 server2 postfix/cleanup[10897]: warning: milter unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock: read error in initial handshake The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking is how are others are modifying messages. Kirk Bocek |
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
At 10:56 AM -0700 5/8/08, Kirk Bocek wrote:
>I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used >MIMEDefang to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the >bodies, etc. However, I can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with >postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1. http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html A key fact on that page: * Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message body. If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement, which is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have dropped in Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using MIMEDefang without needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all. >Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3? You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang with amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may depend on exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang. The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang and a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but you are largely on your own if you were to run into issues. -- Bill Cole [hidden email] |
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:25:06AM -0700, Kirk Bocek wrote:
> The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to > modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking > is how are others are modifying messages. Not surprisingly, by using Postfix 2.4 (.7) or 2.5 (.1). -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:[hidden email]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly. |
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
Kirk Bocek:
> The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to > modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking is > how are others are modifying messages. They use Postfix 2.4 or later. Current release is 2.5. Wietse |
In reply to this post by Bill Cole-3
Bill Cole wrote: > http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html > > A key fact on that page: > > * Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message body. Yep, I see that. Thank you Victor and Wietse for reminding me too. Although upgrading to 2.4/2.5 is a possibility, Administration will be easier if I stick to the standard CentOS 5 packages which is unfortunately 2.3.3. > If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not > translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can > use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement, which > is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have dropped in > Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using MIMEDefang without > needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all. Nope, I am not tied to MIMEDefang at all. >> Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3? > > You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang with > amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may depend on > exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang. > > The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more > common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer > potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang and > a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but you are > largely on your own if you were to run into issues. I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a good match with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend. Thanks for the suggestions. Kirk Bocek |
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Kirk Bocek wrote: > >> >> I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a >> good match with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend. > > Also, take a look at j-chkmail : http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr > > Supported under sendmail and postfix. > Thank you. Will do. Kirk Bocek |
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
Kirk Bocek wrote:
> > > Bill Cole wrote: >> http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html >> >> A key fact on that page: >> >> * Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message >> body. > > Yep, I see that. Thank you Victor and Wietse for reminding me too. > Although upgrading to 2.4/2.5 is a possibility, Administration will be > easier if I stick to the standard CentOS 5 packages which is > unfortunately 2.3.3. it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum .repo file. > >> If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not >> translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can >> use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement, >> which is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have >> dropped in Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using >> MIMEDefang without needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all. > > Nope, I am not tied to MIMEDefang at all. a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content filter mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do? > >>> Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3? >> >> You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang >> with amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may >> depend on exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang. >> >> The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more >> common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer >> potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang >> and a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but >> you are largely on your own if you were to run into issues. > > I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a > good match with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend. > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > Kirk Bocek |
mouss wrote: > it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd > packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum > .repo file. I'll take a look at those repos. I generally stick to atrpms or dag and neither offers postfix. > > a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content filter > mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do? I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header and footer to the message body. Kirk Bocek |
Kirk Bocek wrote:
> > > mouss wrote: >> it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd >> packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum >> .repo file. > > I'll take a look at those repos. It's not a repo. you need to download the rpm or srpm (srpm is better if you have a build environment. this way you can select what features to build). > I generally stick to atrpms or dag and neither offers postfix. > >> >> a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content >> filter mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do? > > I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header > and footer to the message body. check amavisd-new + altermime. why do you add a Reply-To header? do you change the From header? |
In reply to this post by mouss-2
mouss wrote: > Kirk Bocek wrote: >> >> >> mouss wrote: >>> it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd >>> packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum >>> .repo file. >> >> I'll take a look at those repos. > > It's not a repo. you need to download the rpm or srpm (srpm is better if > you have a build environment. this way you can select what features to > build). Duh, my bad. Late in the day and I misconstrued your message. Yes, I know how to rebuild an SRPM. >>> a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content >>> filter mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do? >> >> I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header >> and footer to the message body. > > check amavisd-new + altermime. why do you add a Reply-To header? do you > change the From header? Bill Cole has suggested this combination too. I will look at it. The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar with all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private alias for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so we've been doing it. Thanks for your help. Kirk Bocek |
Kirk Bocek wrote:
> > [snip] > The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar > with > all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private > alias > for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so > we've > been doing it. are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical? |
mouss wrote:
> Kirk Bocek wrote: >> >> [snip] >> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar >> with >> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private >> alias >> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so >> we've >> been doing it. > > are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical? > Or if it's static information (sender X should always have reply-to of Y), a check_sender_access map would do... something like: [hidden email] PREPEND Reply-to: <[hidden email]> -- Noel Jones |
In reply to this post by mouss-2
mouss wrote: > Kirk Bocek wrote: >> >> [snip] >> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar >> with >> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private >> alias >> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so >> we've >> been doing it. > > are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical? A quicky scan of canonical seems to say that feature is only related to address rewriting. I still need to add a footer. Before you respond, See the new thread I'm going to start regarding AlterMime. Thanks, Kirk Bocek |
In reply to this post by Noel Jones-2
Noel Jones wrote: > mouss wrote: >> Kirk Bocek wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am >>> familiar with >>> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private >>> alias >>> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so >>> we've >>> been doing it. >> >> are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical? >> > > Or if it's static information (sender X should always have reply-to of > Y), a check_sender_access map would do... something like: > > [hidden email] PREPEND Reply-to: <[hidden email]> Between you and mouss, sounds like address manipulation is not an issue here. However I still need to find a way to manipulate message *bodies*. Thanks, Kirk Bocek |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |