local recipients in ldap dir

[me]

just signed up and have a novice kind of question, sorry :)

I'm reading the docs but somehow can not get the hang of a config,
for a local domain(canonical/mydestination) that recipients list would 
be looked up

in ldap

postmap queries my ldap, returns no errors, but
cannot get whole thing(postfix) to actually work, either errors about:
unknown user, or status is 'sent/delivered' but nothing in inbox

I know that easier would be to make it virtual, this works, but..

- how to configure postfix to lookup up into ldap for local recipients?
- and if yes is it possible to keep mailboxes under one folder, like for 
vmail?


the whole idea is to have these local recipients' mailboxes behaving 
like virtual, no shell accounts
(on a box here postfix runs coupled with dovecot and dovecot does local 
delivery)


regards

Re: should we use plaintext for message?

[me]

On 2020-03-18 02:51, Wesley Peng wrote:


Shall we use plaintext message in regular email communication?


to make the postfix digest maillist look better yes :=)

Re: should we use plaintext for message?

[me]

On 2020-03-18 03:40, Anton Rieger wrote:


Do xyz like you see in image1.png.
Lorem Ipsum look at image2.png.


images is not html

and OP asked to do plain text, not remove inline images attachments

/me hiddes before the fire starts burning now

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: The historical roots of our computer terms

[me]

On 2020-06-08 07:52, cl...@mobile.oche.de wrote:

you repeatly send the same mail :/

Re: bad.psky.me RBL?

[me]

On 2016-04-06 16:48, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:

Is anyone familiar with this RBL and its quality?  Not a whole lot of
info at .  Terms seem probably ok
.


it gives currently lame servers in bind9

FQDN

[Me]

It is said that a FQDN must be used to set up Postfix.  However, it then 
says that one may use the myhostname parameter.


I wish to use one Postfix server to handle mail for various domains, 
each with a unique and assigned IP address.  One domain does not see the 
other, and outgoing mail should only have the appropriate domain name in 
its header (not that of the server).


What should be the FQDN of the server?  Hostname -f returns 
centos7.is.cc in my case.  (It has an assigned IP address for the sake 
of remote access.)


Thank you.

Canonical?

[Me]

In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses 
the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always 
understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or is 
orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by IANA 
and there is only one form.


However, the document goes on the differentiate between the "canonical" 
and so-called "hosted" domains.  Sadly it fails to realize that these 
must also be "canonical".


To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does 
not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that 
it does.  Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to 
confuse the issue even more.


So why are any domains any different than any others?

Re: Canonical?

[Me]

Thank you very much for that.  It is an interesting possibility and 
deserves consideration.


I wonder; if it was a destination thing, shouldn't the document have 
used the term "destination name"?  As soon as one uses the term "domain" 
in the context of networking, that comes with standard terminology and 
meaning.  Doesn't trying to merge that into something else damage the 
English language and the fundamental meanings we are trying to keep 
standardized?


Thanks again.




On 1/1/19 6:31 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:

On 2019-01-01 Me wrote:

In the document athttp://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses
the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always
understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or
is orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by
IANA and there is only one form.

However, the document goes on the differentiate between the
"canonical" and so-called "hosted" domains.  Sadly it fails to realize
that these must also be "canonical".

To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does
not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that
it does.  Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to
confuse the issue even more.

So why are any domains any different than any others?

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but from my understanding
the README is using the term "domain" in the sense of mail routing
destinations and how/where they are configured rather than the DNS sense
of the word.

Please double-check the "Canonical versus hosted versus other domains"
section of the document:

   http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#canonical

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers

Virtual Domain

[Me]

If a server software can handle one domain, why can't it handle two or 
more in the same manner?  Why must other domains be seen as somehow less 
in importance by labeling them "Virtual"?  Regardless of where the 
server is physically located IP-wise, why not just design the software 
to do multiples of its basic function?


I hope the reader can see the relationship between these questions.  
Feel free to ask for clarification on any point.


Thank you.

advise needed: unknown mail transport error; panic: file size limit < message size

[Squeeshh Me]

Hi Folks,

Need your advise on how to solve a problem related to  'unknown mail
transport error'. I've narrowed the error to linked to VDA. VDA works fine
for cases where (incoming mail size) + (existing mailbox file size) is
greater than the quota set for the mailbox.

Example:
Quota set for User 'A' = 5Mb (500)
Existing mailbox size = 4Mb (400)
Case (A) : Incoming mail size = 2 Mb (200) . The sender gets a bounce
mail as expected because 4+2mb would be greater than 5mb.

However whenever an the incoming mail size by itself is greater than the set
quota (5Mb), postfix panics and the mail would be stuck in the mail queue.

Case (B) : Incoming mail size = 6.8 Mb (6887595) .

/var/log/maillog:
Aug 21 11:12:54 node1 postfix/virtual[40382]: panic: file size limit 500
< message size 6887595. This causes large messages to be delivered
repeatedly after they were submitted with "sendmail -t" or after recipients
were added with the Milter SMFIR_ADDRCPT request
Aug 21 11:12:55 node1 kernel: pid 40382 (virtual), uid 5000: exited on
signal 6

'mailq' will show the mail is stucked in queue due to reason: unknown mail
transport error

Appreciate any ideas to solve or workaround this issue!

Ryan

==
main.cf VDA config:
virtual_mailbox_limit_maps = proxy:mysql:$config_directory/
vj-postfix-vboxlimit.cf
virtual_mailbox_limit_override = yes
virtual_overquota_bounce = yes

postfix version 2.7.1 on Freebsd 8.0 (via ports). VDA version: 2.6.5

Re: advise needed: unknown mail transport error; panic: file size limit < message size

[Squeeshh Me]

Hi,

Thanks for replying. My bad, I realised I posted the log message from
 /var/log/message. It's quite similar to what I get in postfix log
too. Here's the postfix /var/log/mailog version of a test mail that I just
sent, hope this is better (also there are no other warning/panic errors
before this). :)

-
Aug 22 21:50:17 node1 postfix/smtpd[71236]: 4F4056EB019:
client=unknown[172.31.0.181]
Aug 22 21:50:17 node1 postfix/cleanup[71239]: 4F4056EB019: message-id=<
4c712a92.8020...@aaa.com>
Aug 22 21:50:17 node1 postfix/smtpd[71236]: disconnect from
unknown[172.31.0.181]
Aug 22 21:50:17 node1 postfix/qmgr[59650]: 4F4056EB019: from=,
size=1498409, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Aug 22 21:50:17 node1 postfix/virtual[71240]: panic: file size limit 100
< message size 1498997. This causes large messages to be delivered
repeatedly after they were submitted with "sendmail -t" or after recipients
were added with the Milter SMFIR_ADDRCPT request
Aug 22 21:50:18 node1 postfix/qmgr[59650]: warning: private/virtual socket:
malformed response
Aug 22 21:50:18 node1 postfix/qmgr[59650]: warning: transport virtual
failure -- see a previous warning/fatal/panic logfile record for the problem
description
Aug 22 21:50:18 node1 postfix/master[59648]: warning: process
/usr/local/libexec/postfix/virtual pid 71240 killed by signal 6
Aug 22 21:50:18 node1 postfix/error[71260]: 4F4056EB019: to=,
relay=none, delay=1.2, delays=0.15/1/0/0.01, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
(unknown mail transport error)

mailq command:
4F4056EB019  1498409 Sun Aug 22 21:50:17  sen...@aaa.com
(unknown mail transport
error)
 r...@aaa.com



On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Wietse Venema  wrote:

> Squeeshh Me:
> > Aug 21 11:12:55 node1 kernel: pid 40382 (virtual), uid 5000: exited on
> > signal 6
>
> For details, look in your MAILLOG file.
>
>Wietse
>
> http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
>
> Look for obvious signs of trouble
>
> Postfix logs all failed and successful deliveries to a logfile. The file is
> usually called /var/log/maillog or /var/log/mail; the exact pathname is
> defined
> in the /etc/syslog.conf file.
>
> When Postfix does not receive or deliver mail, the first order of business
> is
> to look for errors that prevent Postfix from working properly:
>
>% egrep '(warning|error|fatal|panic):' /some/log/file | more
>
> Note: the most important message is near the BEGINNING of the output. Error
> messages that come later are less useful.
>
> The nature of each problem is indicated as follows:
>
>  * "panic" indicates a problem in the software itself that only a
> programmer
>can fix. Postfix cannot proceed until this is fixed.
>
>  * "fatal" is the result of missing files, incorrect permissions, incorrect
>configuration file settings that you can fix. Postfix cannot proceed
> until
>this is fixed.
>
>  * "error" reports an error condition. For safety reasons, a Postfix
> process
>will terminate when more than 13 of these happen.
>
>  * "warning" indicates a non-fatal error. These are problems that you may
> not
>be able to fix (such as a broken DNS server elsewhere on the network)
> but
>may also indicate local configuration errors that could become a problem
>later.
>
>
>
>

Re: advise needed: unknown mail transport error; panic: file size limit < message size

[Squeeshh Me]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Wietse Venema  wrote:
> Squeeshh Me:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for replying. My bad, I realised I posted the log message from
>>  /var/log/message. It's quite similar to what I get in postfix log
>> too. Here's the postfix /var/log/mailog version of a test mail that I just
>> sent, hope this is better (also there are no other warning/panic errors
>> before this). :)
>
> PLEASE RUN THE COMMAND that I posted in my earlier response.
>
>        Wietse
>

Wietse: ok, here it is:
 egrep '(warning|error|fatal|panic):' /var/log/maillog | more

Aug 22 21:50:17 node2 postfix/virtual[71240]: panic: file size limit
100 < message size 1498997. This causes large messages to be
delivered repeatedly after they were submitted with "sendmail -t" or
after recipients were added with the Milter SMFIR_ADDRCPT request
Aug 22 21:50:18 node2 postfix/qmgr[59650]: warning: private/virtual
socket: malformed response
Aug 22 21:50:18 node2 postfix/qmgr[59650]: warning: transport virtual
failure -- see a previous warning/fatal/panic logfile record for the
problem description
Aug 22 21:50:18 node2 postfix/master[59648]: warning: process
/usr/local/libexec/postfix/virtual pid 71240 killed by signal 6

Jerry, sorry I didn't realise there are posting guidelines, I've tried
to meet them, hope I did right.

Re: advise needed: unknown mail transport error; panic: file size limit < message size

[Squeeshh Me]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Wietse Venema  wrote:
> Squeeshh Me:
>> Wietse: ok, here it is:
>>  egrep '(warning|error|fatal|panic):' /var/log/maillog | more
>>
>> Aug 22 21:50:17 node2 postfix/virtual[71240]: panic: file size limit
>> 100 < message size 1498997.
>
> Your Postfix version was modified with an unofficial patch
> that implements quota in the virtual delivery agent.
>
> This unofficial patch allows you to configure a quota limit that
> is smaller than the message size limit.
>
> Unfortunately, the unofficial patch mis-implements quota smaller
> than the message size; instead of returning the message as
> undeliverable, it lets Postfix fail delivery repeatedly.
>
> The panic message was added to as part of a safety mechanism that
> protects against broken unofficial patches.
>
>        Wietse
>

Thanks Wietse for your advice and time, appreciate both. The advice
sheds a great deal of light. Guess I'll seek advise from the VDA
folks. Cheers.

Table has changed; restarting messages not appearing

[Who Me]

I'm in the process of replacing the hardware for my external mail relay.  Both 
my existing postfix (V2.5.5) implementation, and my new one (V2.8.7) update 
their relay_recipients table daily from Active Directory, using a very similar 
method as described here:
http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/mailrelay/

On the older box, every day I see a message stating 
that hash:/etc/postfix/relay_recipients has changed -- restarting.  However, 
my new box does not log this message.  After a few tests, I was able to confirm 
that even though I don't receive a message, it does pick up any of the changes 
to relay_recipients.

I suppose that I don't *need* to see this message.  Yet over the years, I have 
come accustomed to seeing it.  My best Google searches have yielded no usable 
results.  Does anyone know what changed?

Thanks!

Re: Table has changed; restarting messages not appearing

[Who Me]

>> I'm in the process of replacing the hardware for my external mail relay.  
>> Both my existing postfix (V2.5.5) implementation, and my new one (V2.8.7) 
>> update their relay_recipients table daily from Active Directory, using a 
>> very similar method as described here:
>> http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/mailrelay/
>> 
>> On the older box, every day I see a message stating that 
>> hash:/etc/postfix/relay_recipients has changed -- restarting.  However, my 
>> new box does not log this message.  After a few tests, I was able to confirm 
>> that even though I don't receive a message, it does pick up any of the 
>> changes to relay_recipients.
>> 
>> I suppose that I don't *need* to see this message.  Yet over the years, I 
>> have come accustomed to seeing it.  My best Google searches have yielded no 
>> usable results.  Does anyone know what changed?
>> 
>> Thanks!
> 
> Postfix still logs that message.  Maybe syslog is logging different
> severity to different files.
> 
> 
>   -- Noel Jones

Or chrooted postfix services with missing syslog sockets in the jail...?

Regards

Andreas


Good afternoon - 

Thanks for your suggestions.  I like the way you think - but unfortunately, 
none of the services are chrooted.  I am able to see other (normal) postfix 
messages in syslog.  Additionally, both boxes are configured to log all mail 
messages the same: 
mail.*                                                  -/var/log/maillog


Aside from the update version, there really isn't a whole lot that is different 
between the two boxes.  (I used the existing config files as a guide when 
building the new box.)  

Thanks!

Re: Table has changed; restarting messages not appearing

[Who Me]

> > On the older box, every day I see a message stating that
> > hash:/etc/postfix/relay_recipients has changed -- restarting.
> 
> This happens when an smtpd(8) notices a table change after processing
> a request and just before accepting another. A sufficiently idle
> system will not have any mail coming in during or shortly after
> the table change, and no message is logged since no smtpd(8) process
> services multiple requests in a time interval that spans the table
> change time.
> 
> > However, my new box does not log this message.
> 
> It is likely "sufficiently idle".

This is a plausible explanation. If the Postfix daemon receives no
new client connection, the Postfix daemon just terminates when the
idle time limit is reached, without ever having looked at the table
after it was changed.

    Wietse


Prior to yesterday afternoon, the only mails flowing through the new box were 
the test messages I sent.  Yesterday afternoon, I started to phase in the new 
box, effectively removing the sufficiently idle condition.

This morning after the daily update process ran, the messages were generated, 
confirming Viktor's and Wietse's assessment.  Thank you very much!  I really 
appreciate your insight.

Re: postfix add a line in body of email.

[intelligent me]

Thanks to all my problem is solved

Re: dkim error in virtualmin

[intelligent me]

Ok sir but i am using postfix as a MTA so i asked this question as
DKIM-milter is installed in the server by virtualmin.