Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for submission/smtpd #76

Open
basos9 opened this issue Apr 15, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Support for submission/smtpd #76

basos9 opened this issue Apr 15, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@basos9
Copy link

basos9 commented Apr 15, 2021

It is a common practice to implement a smtpd on port 587 for the submission service. The naming is defined from the configuration on the master.cf

for example

submission inet n       -       -       -       -       smtpd
  -o syslog_name=postfix/submission

produces the log

Απρ 15 12:20:28 mx2 postfix/submission/smtpd[6833]: Anonymous TLS connection established from  xx[5.5.5.5]: TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)

These could be reported along with smtpd or in a seperate submission prefix.

@olvsa
Copy link

olvsa commented Nov 8, 2021

Moreover, in case of multiple postfix instances log line may contain not "postfix" but "postfix-instance" (postfix-mx in my example).

master.cf snipped:

content-filter unix -    -       y       -       2       smtp
 -o syslog_name=${multi_instance_name?{$multi_instance_name}:{postfix}}/$service_name

log line looks like
Nov 08 08:08:59 mx postfix-mx/content-filter/smtp[273144]: 4HnkK60lBRz6tl1: to=<[email protected]>, relay=192.168.1.1[192.168.1.1]:20202, delay=1.9, delays=1.7/0/0.05/0.18, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 from MTA(smtp:[192.168.1.2]:10025): 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 4HnkK74hXyz6tl6)

so neither regex from 0.3 nor from 0.2 does not catch them
v0.2: logLine = regexp.MustCompile(` ?postfix/(\w+)\[\d+\]: (.*)`)
v0.3: logLine = regexp.MustCompile(` ?(postfix|opendkim)(/(\w+))?\[\d+\]: (.*)`)

@Subito
Copy link

Subito commented Feb 22, 2022

This should be fixed by #88 if you want to give it a try

@1kUHuiswkvj7spRO
Copy link

Having the same issue here. I have not tried the PR @Subito. I don't think it will ever be merged in?

@Subito
Copy link

Subito commented Mar 18, 2024

Having the same issue here. I have not tried the PR @Subito. I don't think it will ever be merged in?

Probably not. I'm still using the fork which contains #88 and it works fine for us.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants