How to tell which instance is which
Hello, just a suggestion. Below is an example how freshly started 3 Postfix instances looks in process list (I'm not posting ps from working system to not bloat this message): 18374 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/lib/postfix/master 18377 ?S 0:00 \_ pickup -l -t fifo -u -c -o content_filter= -o receive_override_options= 18378 ?S 0:00 \_ qmgr -l -t fifo -u -c 18455 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/lib/postfix/master 18458 ?S 0:00 \_ pickup -l -t fifo -u -c -o content_filter= -o receive_override_options= 18460 ?S 0:00 \_ qmgr -l -t fifo -u -c 18535 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/lib/postfix/master 18539 ?S 0:00 \_ pickup -l -t fifo -u -c -o content_filter= -o receive_override_options= 18540 ?S 0:00 \_ qmgr -l -t fifo -u -c 3 instances are: MSA, MX and outgoing relay with fast retry for specific domains. Would it be possible to add the instance name (or group name/instance name) to the line containing master process? I mean just a decorator like this: 18535 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/lib/postfix/master postfix-mx 18539 ?S 0:00 \_ pickup -l -t fifo -u -c -o content_filter= -o receive_override_options= 18540 ?S 0:00 \_ qmgr -l -t fifo -u -c It could be a tiny aid in case of problems where time is precious. Thanks in advance and regards, Andrzej
Re: How to tell which instance is which
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 17:39, Wietse Venema wrote: > By default, Postfix multi-instance support logs each instance with > its own name (using the syslog_name main.cf parameter). > > For example, to find out which instances exist and what their master > PIDs are, use: > > # postfix status > > This will log information about each instance, with its own name > > Changing ps(1) command output is NOT portable. Not all the world > is Linux. In fact there are 10 times as many Macs. Thanks, I just didn't know it's platform specific... I thought of master(8) command line arguments that are displayed but ignored -- but it's not really THAT important. And I didn't mean to start a flamewar! ;-) Thanks, Andrzej
Re: mailing lists and "unknown mail transport error"
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:39, Dominik Storck wrote: > > This has been working perfectly for years. Now the number of recipients > for some of > these lists have increased to more than 200. > > When a mail is sent to these recipients mail delivery starts as expected > but stops > short before end of list. The exact count changes, probably due to different > state of of concurrent mail queue entries. > > The error message is an "unknown mail transport error", the mail stays > in the queue and > delivery starts over again from the beginnig until I remove the mail > from the queue. > > I believe there is some limit to 200 recipients, queue entries or whatever. I'd speculate it's low open file limit in operating system. I had this once when my 'everyone' alias exceeded several hundred users. See ulimit -n Increase it in your postfix startup script to, say, 10, and observe the difference. Regards, Andrzej
Re: delivery temporarily suspended: connect to, localhost[10.11.12.13]:25: Connection timed out
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:32, mouss wrote: > > Admin a écrit : > > Hi there, > > > > I am using fetchmail to pop3 mail from gmail. But when I receive email > > I find that fetchmail is using postfix to deliver the mail to the > > corresponding internal mailbox. postfix responds with the following > > error and best I can tell the mail never ends up in my inbox. Looks > > like localhost is considered 10.11.12.13. The error message, > > /etc/hosts, and postconf -n are below. > - find out why you get 10.11.12.13 for localhost. if this is returned by > your ISP DNS server, then get far away from such a server. It has something to do with GPRS. There are plenty links if you just google for the IP. Regards, Andrzej
Re: delivery temporarily suspended: connect to, localhost[10.11.12.13]:25: Connection timed out
> 10.11.12.13 is also the IP of localhost.com. Is it possible you have no localhost entry in /etc/hosts, causing your machine to look up localhost.com ? THANKS VERY MUCH. It's enough to have .com default domain suffix and it explains some weirdnessess ;-) Regards, Andrzej
Re: Impact of SSL renegotiation attacks on SMTP mail
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 02:29, Wietse Venema wrote: > Last week there was big news about a security hole in the TLS > protocol that allows a man-in-the-middle to prepend data to a > fully-secure TLS session. Thank you both gentlemen for your hard work on this. I've got possibly lame question. I assume STARTTLS is affected, but is also 'wrapper mode' vulnerable to this attack? I mean the mode in which client and server immediately estabilish encrypted channel, before issuing any SMTP command. Thanks, Andrzej Kukula
