Dear list, this message was generated by the receiver postfix (2.2.1),
where the sender postfix was 2.3.2 from openSUSE 10.2. The receiver's
disk was temporarily full, which it announced correctly, but the sender
ignored it and continued to try to send. Is this normal behaviour or did
I configu
Rod Dorman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 23:36:44, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
> Joe Sloan wrote:
>> ...
>> It's kind of strange that you call it "mutl-platform" when it's
redhat only.
> ...
> iRedMail was ported from OpenBSD, but it is incompatibility now.
That's an odd porting phil
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kurt Buff wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
>> myd
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:16:43 -0700
"Kurt Buff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > clearly sendmail is installed and interfering.
> OK - I'll fix that.
In order to completely disable sendmail, including the outgoing mail
service, you must use:
sendmail_enable="NO"
sendmail_submit_enable="N
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kurt Buff wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe sendmail was ever installed - IIRC, I selected to
>> install with no MTA.
>>
>> Sep 25 15:18:20 loki sendmail[28707]: m8PMIKLT028707: from=kbuff,
>> size=795, class=0, nrcpts=1,
>> msgid=
On Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 23:36:44, Zhang Huangbin wrote:
> Joe Sloan wrote:
>> ...
>> It's kind of strange that you call it "mutl-platform" when it's redhat only.
> ...
> iRedMail was ported from OpenBSD, but it is incompatibility now.
That's an odd porting philosophy.
The conventional
James Brown:
>
> On 26/09/2008, at 1:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > James Brown:
> >> Examining the headers of the email I sent to this list:
> >> 1. Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([127.0.0.1] helo=[192.168.1.10])
> >> by
> > ...
> >> 3. Received: from mail.bordo.com.au ([127.0.0
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
Try:
mydestination = $myhostnam
Kurt Buff wrote:
I don't believe sendmail was ever installed - IIRC, I selected to
install with no MTA.
Sep 25 15:18:20 loki sendmail[28707]: m8PMIKLT028707: from=kbuff,
size=795, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This line is logged by sendmail(TM).
Sep 25 15
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
>>
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
>>>
>>> Try:
>>>
>>> mydestination = $myhostname, loca
James Brown wrote:
On 26/09/2008, at 1:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
James Brown:
Examining the headers of the email I sent to this list:
1. Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([127.0.0.1]
helo=[192.168.1.10]) by
...
3. Received: from mail.bordo.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(mail.bor
On 26/09/2008, at 1:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
James Brown:
Examining the headers of the email I sent to this list:
1. Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([127.0.0.1] helo=[192.168.1.10])
by
...
3. Received:from mail.bordo.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(mail.bordo.com.au [127.0.0.1])
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:35:14PM -0700, scott andreas wrote:
> hello group
>
> Here is what I'm trying to do. I want to set up Postfix 2.3 to send
> emails. I'm using Postfix as a relay only server to Google Apps. At Google
> Apps we have our domain email hosted with many accounts (+400).
>
>
hello group
Here is what I'm trying to do. I want to set up Postfix 2.3 to send
emails. I'm using Postfix as a relay only server to Google Apps. At Google
Apps we have our domain email hosted with many accounts (+400).
We have an application server that runs under a user.
When the application sen
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:16:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I would not be surprised if there was some network rate limiting
> feature that you inadvertantly turned on, and that limits the data
> rate to 1 byte/second under some conditions.
This said, it is just one possibility, the truth wi
Luigi Iotti:
> > I wonder if the machine is running something that slows down traffic
> > that looks "suspicious" to a data rate of 1 byte/s.
>
> But the same behaviour is exhibited by two machines, connected to the
> Internet by completely different carriers with different service agreements.
In
Gerardo Herzig wrote:
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some of
those with 15000
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some of
those with 15000 users), so cant be shur
> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Wietse Venema
>
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
> > > gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de)
wrote:
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[10.11.12.253] [10.11.12.253]:
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de)
wrote:
> I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
> particular email-address, as follows:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [10.11.12.253] [10.11.12.253]:
> >>>RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 5
Sebastian Lechte (FILMSTARTS.de) wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
> particular email-address, as follows:
>
> ---
>
>
>UNDELIVERABLE MAIL
>
Hello,
I am submitting emails via SMTP to Postfix 2.5.5. I get a bounce on a
particular email-address, as follows:
---
UNDELIVERABLE MAIL
Your message to the following recipients cannot be deliv
mouss wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
>>> yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever
>>> catch spam on your server? it n
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
mydestination =
mydomain = example.com
myhostname = loki.example.com
Try:
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost
Note, with the default setting "append_dot_mydomain = yes", mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" becomes
Noel Jones wrote:
mouss wrote:
He already has permit_mynetworks and so on. so his problem is
different (and probably rare). He needs to exclude his domains from
check_mx_access.
Using a check_sender_access whitelist as posted earlier is one solution.
a few other obvious solutions:
- not r
mouss wrote:
He already has permit_mynetworks and so on. so his problem is different
(and probably rare). He needs to exclude his domains from
check_mx_access.
Using a check_sender_access whitelist as posted earlier is one
solution.
a few other obvious solutions:
- not rejecting either l
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
> > mydestination =
> > mydomain = example.com
> > myhostname = loki.example.com
>
> Try:
>
> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost
Note, with the default setting "append_dot_mydomain = yes", mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" becomes "[EMAI
Henrik K wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever catch
spam on your server? it never caught anything here.
I d
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
> > gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the smtpd process
> > becomes un-stuck more than 9 minutes later. In the mean time, the
> > SMT
Kurt Buff wrote, at 09/25/2008 12:47 PM:
> I'm getting messages in /var/log/maillog about "mail looping back to
> myself", and the mail is discarded.
> Sep 25 03:01:21 loki postfix/smtp[24894]: 021951A4CEC:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay=0.01, delays=0.01/0/0/0,
> dsn=5.4.6, status=b
I know I'm missing something simple, but I'm going blind trying to
find it. Any help much appreciated.
I've got a new freebsd box set up. I want the [daily|weekly|monthly]
periodic reports to be delivered to my central mail server, not
locally. This machine does not otherwise in any way handle mai
> Da: Wietse Venema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Luigi Iotti:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy
> loaded and with
> > a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have
> CentOS5 with
> > postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
>>
>> However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
>> is there not a better way?
>
> yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did it ever catch
> spam on your server? it never caught anything here.
I don't
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49:33AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> In your case, the smtpd process gets stuck, the cleanup process
> gives up after waiting for one hour, and then the smtpd process
> becomes un-stuck more than 9 minutes later. In the mean time, the
> SMTP client and the cleanup proc
Luigi Iotti:
> Hi all
>
> I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy loaded and with
> a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have CentOS5 with
> postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both machines there is a
> mail account signed on the same mailing li
Matteo Niccoli:
> Wietse Venema ha scritto:
> > Look at the virtual(8) delivery agent. It uses lookup tables
> > to map a recipient to a pathname, and to look up the UID/GID
> > information. Such tables can be generated programmatically.
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/virtual.8.html
> > http://www
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 09:21:54AM -0400, Justin McAleer wrote:
> >Another difference is that to the extent possible, failures to deliver
> >BCC copies do not generate bounces, so for archive/forensic/... copies,
> >BCC is often best.
>
> I've always had concerns over the bcc bounce situation. Ca
James Brown:
> On 25/09/2008, at 11:03 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>
> > James,
> >
> >> I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
> >
> > amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
> > Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
> >
> > Mar
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Matteo Niccoli wrote:
> Wietse Venema ha scritto:
> >Look at the virtual(8) delivery agent. It uses lookup tables
> >to map a recipient to a pathname, and to look up the UID/GID
> >information. Such tables can be generated programmatically.
> >
> >http://w
Hi all
I operate two very different postfix machines. One is heavy loaded and with
a decent hardware, the other is my home machine. Both have CentOS5 with
postfix-2.3.3, amavis, spamassassin and clamav. On both machines there is a
mail account signed on the same mailing list (in particular, the po
2008/9/25 mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Juan Miscaro wrote:
>>
>> 2008/9/25 Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Juan Miscaro wrote:
So I have the following lines in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
James Brown wrote:
[snip]
The Astaro box is doing S/MIME signing and encrypting, but I got the
same DKIM failure with it turned off.
when you test, make sure "turning off" really mean "it does not pass
through". and prove it (in short, look for a proff that it is so. don't
trust your interpr
On 25/09/2008, at 11:03 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
James,
I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
Mark
Yes, I thought it must be DKIM-clean, b
Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use th
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/9/25 Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
So I have the following lines in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
permit_mynetworks
permit_s
2008/9/25 Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Juan Miscaro wrote:
>>
>> So I have the following lines in main.cf:
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>reject_non_fqdn_recipient
>>reject_non_fqdn_sender
>>reject_unknown_sender_domain
>>permit_mynetworks
>>perm
Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
> May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
>
> I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
> Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
> users at the same time.
> I want the following behaviour: all migrated users
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:39:25PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Although there is some overlap of which method to use when,
generally one would use virtual_alias_maps to duplicate mail
for specified users, and recipient_bcc_maps to duplicate mail
for everyone in a specific
Wietse Venema ha scritto:
Look at the virtual(8) delivery agent. It uses lookup tables
to map a recipient to a pathname, and to look up the UID/GID
information. Such tables can be generated programmatically.
http://www.postfix.org/virtual.8.html
http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html
So is
James,
> I'll have to work out how to turn off going through amavisd-new next.
amavisd-new is DKIM-clean, it will not break a signature.
Something else is modifying your Mime-Version header field.
Mark
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:39:25PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Although there is some overlap of which method to use when,
> generally one would use virtual_alias_maps to duplicate mail
> for specified users, and recipient_bcc_maps to duplicate mail
> for everyone in a specific domain.
Another dif
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > Wietse Venema:
> > > > Anton Yuzhaninov:
> > > > > In postfix-2.5.4 environment variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME is not set at
> > > > > all, if hostname is unknown.
> > > > >
> > > > > Older version work in different way - env variable CLIENT_HOST
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > Anton Yuzhaninov:
> > > > In postfix-2.5.4 environment variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME is not set at
> > > > all, if hostname is unknown.
> > > >
> > > > Older version work in different way - env variable CLIENT_HOSTNAME set
> > > > to string unk
James,
> I'm sending this reply using Thunderbird rather than Mail.app to see how
> the headers differ.
>
> I've tried sending without going through the ASSP anti-spam proxy to no
> avail. Likewise using amavisd-new.
Yes, this one is a PASS!
It still has two MIME-Version header fields, but unlik
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, James Brown wrote:
Robert Schetterer wrote:
> James Brown schrieb:
>> Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
>> them an email directly?
>>
>> That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
>> giving false results somehow.
>
James Brown schrieb:
Robert Schetterer wrote:
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
them an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
giving false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready
Robert Schetterer wrote:
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send
them an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's
giving false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready tried Sender Auth Test
Hi!
Blaise Hurtlin schrieb:
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use the Postfix to
send mails. On Postfix, if the u
James Brown schrieb:
Would anyone who checks DKIM sigs on incoming mails mind if I send them
an email directly?
That way I can make sure it is not just the DKIM reflector that's giving
false results somehow.
Thanks,
James.
have you allready tried Sender Auth Test Service [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blaise Hurtlin wrote:
May I should explain a bit more what i want to do..
I'm migrating my mail system from an old, buggy, Groupwise system to
Postfix. The migration will take several month as I can't migrate all
users at the same time.
I want the following behaviour: all migrated users use th
61 matches
Mail list logo
