On 9/18/2014 10:39 AM, Moore, Patrick wrote: > Thanks, Wietse. > > I'm going to outline how the 20,000 entries were lost and how I modified the > address_verify_map file. This is to help anyone who encounters my issues in > the future. > > I ran postmap -s hash:/path/to/address_verify_map > address_verify_map.out > I modified the address_verify_map.out file by removing the entries. In my > case these were people with error 550 (unknown user). > I ran postmap address_verify_map.out. If there were any duplicate entries > (case-insensitive) within the file, this process removed them. > > I had to shutdown postfix, move the address_verify_map.out file to > /path/to/address_verify_map and change permissions to postfix:postfix. > Start postfix up. >
On the couple of occasions I've needed to delete an entry, here's what I do: - postfix stop !!!! required !!! - use postmap -d b...@example.com hash:/var/lib/postfix/verify to remove the offending entry. - postfix start -- Noel Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org > [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:56 AM > To: Postfix users > Subject: Re: address_map_verify question > > Moore, Patrick: >> All, >> >> I've recently implemented the address_verify_map to mitigate some >> verification problems we were having with a cloud provider. I had to >> remove one entry in this cache. After using postmap -s to export the >> contents to file, remove the offending entry, and run postmap again to >> recreate the file, I lost approximately 20,000 entries in the cache. > > Editing the cache is not supported. That would require sending messages to > the verify daemon, and such code does not exist at this time. The verify > daemon locks the file for exclusive access and bad things will happen when an > open file is changed. > >> When running postmap to recreate the file, all of these "duplicates" >> were removed. Is this normal behavior? Is postfix case-sensitive with >> regards to recipient verification on inbound mail? > > RFC 5321 section 2.4 says: > > [SMTP command] Verbs and argument values [...] are not case > sensitive, with the sole exception in this specification of a > mailbox local-part [...] > > I did not write code to case-fold the domain portions. That would be an > optimization to save some space. There is also some risk of false positives > and false negatives; Postfix does know how downstream software handles case > differences. > > You're welcome to contribute code to case-fold domain portions, but you must > not use strchr(). > > Wietse >
