On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:57:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> 
> > Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> > > > > The policyd can't generate log entries out of the blue - but why 
> > > > > those 
> > > > > messages were not logged then by postfix?
> > > > 
> > > > What policyd messages are you referring to? 
> > > 
> > > Home-breed, but free to use by anyone: 
> > > http://www.kfki.hu/cnc/projekt/postfilter/.
> > 
> > Your logfiles are not available at that URL.
> > 
> > What activity has policyd logged that has no Postfix logging equivalent?

The activities are policy daemon queries and the result codes to Postfix. 
The policy daemon logs just before returning the result code to Postfix, 
into SQL, the following data: sender and recipient address, client name 
and address, username (from SASL authentication), the restriction class 
and policy of the policy daemon configuration which resulted the return 
code to Postfix, the final action to Postfix (i.e. pass the message or 
not), and a timestamp.

What puzzles me that there's no even queue file generation logs from 
Postfix.
 
> Note, policy daemons log envelopes not messages. If a client gives up
> before ".", it is perfectly normal to see lots of noise in policy service
> and SMTP server logs, with no corresponding deliveries.

You write that lots of noise both from the policy daemon and the smtpd 
daemon. But if the client gives up before ".", does the smtpd daemon log
anything about the "accepted" messages so far? Or the generation of the 
queue files are logged strictly after "."?

If Postfix does not log if the client gives up, that'd explain the 
difference between the policy daemon and the Postfix logs.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kad...@blackhole.kfki.hu, kad...@mail.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

Reply via email to