On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 22:53 -0700, Joe Sloan wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Personally, I would not have a M$ box for anything other than charity.
> > That is to allow those nice far eastern people access to my resources to
> > send UCE.
> > Mind you, most of them buckle under the load
> >
>
>
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 23:55 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu May 28 2009 23:21:06 Steve wrote:
> > way of the 1980's 'is the law' that leads to entirely useless, rude
> > and incorrect answers.
>
> Replied offlist. I think this thread should stop here. Thank you.
And another 'anal' response it was
On Thu May 28 2009 23:21:06 Steve wrote:
> way of the 1980's 'is the law' that leads to entirely useless, rude
> and incorrect answers.
Replied offlist. I think this thread should stop here. Thank you.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Sub
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 15:20 -0400, Scott Lewis wrote:
> On May 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can do the same to support your 1980's view of systems
> > administration? You need to get some help with that temper of yours.
> > It's the handrail of the crippled mind.
>
> I lur
At 10:14 PM 5/28/2009, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Odd. I cannot reproduce that problem here, also using dovecot as
virtual_transport. Just to be sure, you are passing at least the 'hu' flags
to pipe(8) for dovecot's LDA, right? These two flags ensure case-folding,
which local(8) does by default.
I
Eduardo Júnior wrote:
Hi,
I have a Postfix Server 2.4.0 with virtual domains and interface
postfixadmin.
I want disabling a domain through postfixadmin. There's the option ACTIVE.
You must query 'active' column in virtual domain lookup map. like this:
query = SELECT domain FROM doma
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Eduardo Júnior wrote:
> I have a Postfix Server 2.4.0 with virtual domains and interface
> postfixadmin.
> I want disabling a domain through postfixadmin. There's the option ACTIVE.
What is your definition of 'disable' in this context?
--
Sahil Tandon
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Rick wrote:
> Following up on my previous posts, I'm still experiencing this issue of
> sometimes email being delivered as upper case (which ends up in the file
> system as upper case). I appreciate the guidance I've received, but I hate
> putting fixes in place without unders
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 07:00:43PM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>> but if you distribute a system that will be used by commercial vendors,
>> things get different. and they are complex because it's not about your
>> interpretation of the license, but about possible interpretations by
mouss wrote:
but if you distribute a system that will be used by commercial vendors,
things get different. and they are complex because it's not about your
interpretation of the license, but about possible interpretations by the
vendors/resellers/customers.
Which is, interestingly enough, a goo
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:12:28 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>
> > Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
> Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with postfix's
> license? I hate to adm
Thank you. I'll test this out.
Matt Ausmus
Network Administrator
Chapman University
635 West Palm Street
Orange, CA 92868
(714)628-2738
maus...@chapman.edu
"You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back,
you've got something."
-HARTLEY
Tim Legg a écrit :
> According to 'postconf -d', myhostname is set to genex.localdomain where
> genex is an arbitrary name I chose for a hostname when I installed Debian
> Lenny.
>
> When I look in /etc/postfix/main.cf,
> myhostname = genex.example1.com
>
> Is this a normal discrepancy?
use 'p
admin2 a écrit :
> Hi there,
>
> Okay the top 5 google hits could not answer this. how do I place a
> bounce mail message in the /etc/postfix/virtual file? Similar to a
> sendmail virtuser file?
>
>
> postmas...@domain.org error:nouser 550 No such user here
you should not reject mail f
LuKreme a écrit :
> On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>
>> Turns out Wietse was wrong:
>> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
> Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with postfix's
> license? I hate to admit it, but I've never read it.
>
>
li
Eduardo Júnior wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a Postfix Server 2.4.0 with virtual domains and interface
> postfixadmin.
> I want disabling a domain through postfixadmin. There's the option ACTIVE.
>
> What this option do?
> Disable a domain, right? But internally, it just modify field active
> in the ta
Hi,
I have a Postfix Server 2.4.0 with virtual domains and interface
postfixadmin.
I want disabling a domain through postfixadmin. There's the option ACTIVE.
What this option do?
Disable a domain, right? But internally, it just modify field active in the
table domain in your database?
And what di
Matt Ausmus:
> > I'm using postfix 2.3.3 on some Centos 5.x boxes strictly to send mail
> > for alerting purposes. I've got relaying setup to go to our main smtp
> > server which is running FreeBSD 6.x and postfix. What I'm trying to do
> > is for the outgoing messages to show the hostn...@chapma
On May 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Steve wrote:
Perhaps you can do the same to support your 1980's view of systems
administration? You need to get some help with that temper of yours.
It's the handrail of the crippled mind.
I lurk more than post here mostly as a facet of being in awe of the
amoun
Sorry for taking so long. Here's the raw email file.
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: maus...@chapman.edu
Delivered-To: maus...@chapman.edu
Received: from duncan-kennedydhcp146.chapman.edu (law254.chapman.edu
[206.211.146.254])
by edric.chapman.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8744D568F4
f
Following up on my previous posts, I'm still experiencing this issue of
sometimes email being delivered as upper case (which ends up in the file
system as upper case). I appreciate the guidance I've received, but I hate
putting fixes in place without understanding what's broken.
Empirical testing
Jon Harris wrote:
> Hi List
>
> A few of our clients use our postfix server for relaying. Generally, its
> working really well, but several users are reporting regular "451
> Temporary Lookup Failure" bounce errors. This is them sending "outgoing"
> (ie non-local domains) and domains that Postfix s
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:42 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > A machine name is required for several email-related Internet standards.
> > No problem with this;
> > > Besides, having all DNS names resolve to the same box is n
On Thu May 28 2009 13:08:00 admin2 wrote:
> Okay the top 5 google hits could not answer this.
For good reason: you have not understood the issues.
> how do I place a
> bounce mail message in the /etc/postfix/virtual file? Similar to a
> sendmail virtuser file?
What is your "/etc/postfix/virtual
Corey Chandler wrote:
admin2 wrote:
Hi there,
I am finding log entries with all the connections from "unknown" why
isnt the inverse hostname places in the postfix log?
May 28 11:01:58 enabled postfix/smtpd[14960]: connect from
unknown[88.252.82.203]
DNS can't resolve that ip. I can't ei
Hi List
A few of our clients use our postfix server for relaying. Generally, its
working really well, but several users are reporting regular "451
Temporary Lookup Failure" bounce errors. This is them sending "outgoing"
(ie non-local domains) and domains that Postfix should be relaying for,
in its
admin2 wrote:
Hi there,
I am finding log entries with all the connections from "unknown" why
isnt the inverse hostname places in the postfix log?
May 28 11:01:58 enabled postfix/smtpd[14960]: connect from
unknown[88.252.82.203]
DNS can't resolve that ip. I can't either-- I don't show tha
At 11:03 AM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
Hi there,
I am finding log entries with all the connections from
"unknown" why isnt the inverse hostname places in the postfix log?
May 28 11:01:58 enabled postfix/smtpd[14960]: connect from
unknown[88.252.82.203]
No reverse DNS for that IP address.
#
Hi there,
Okay the top 5 google hits could not answer this. how do I place a
bounce mail message in the /etc/postfix/virtual file? Similar to a
sendmail virtuser file?
postmas...@domain.org error:nouser 550 No such user here
Hi there,
I am finding log entries with all the connections from "unknown" why
isnt the inverse hostname places in the postfix log?
May 28 11:01:58 enabled postfix/smtpd[14960]: connect from
unknown[88.252.82.203]
admin2:
> Hi there,
>
> I am getting error messages for mail sent to
> sample.em...@firstdomain.com but in the /etc/postfix/aliases file I have
> an entry for sample.email to send to sample.em...@anotherdomain.com .
> why am I getting a forwarding loop.
>
> Status: 5.4.6
> Diagnostic-Code: X-P
Hi there,
I am getting error messages for mail sent to
sample.em...@firstdomain.com but in the /etc/postfix/aliases file I have
an entry for sample.email to send to sample.em...@anotherdomain.com .
why am I getting a forwarding loop.
Status: 5.4.6
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; mail forwarding
Steve:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > A machine name is required for several email-related Internet standards.
> No problem with this;
> > Besides, having all DNS names resolve to the same box is not normal usage.
> >
> This is nothing more than an opinion as far
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:41:30AM -0300, Marcio Merlone wrote:
>
> > Wietse Venema escreveu:
> >> (...)
> >> Apart from that, if they come up with a decent MTA then I welcome
> >> some competition. More motivation for me to look into postfix-lite.
> >>
> > That would be grea
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> A machine name is required for several email-related Internet standards.
No problem with this;
> Besides, having all DNS names resolve to the same box is not normal usage.
>
This is nothing more than an opinion as far as I can tell. It may
On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
Turns out Wietse was wrong:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with postfix's
license? I hate to admit it, but I've never read it.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:41:30AM -0300, Marcio Merlone wrote:
> Wietse Venema escreveu:
>> (...)
>> Apart from that, if they come up with a decent MTA then I welcome
>> some competition. More motivation for me to look into postfix-lite.
>>
> That would be great, I have some servers wich sends
On Thursday 28 May 2009 14:41:30 Marcio Merlone wrote:
>
> That would be great, I have some servers wich sends nothing but
> administrative mails to me, logcheck, crontab, such annoying things.
> They need nothing more than a bare bones MTA wich is able to send mails
> to a relay host.
Debian has
Aravind M D:
>
> When we have done an smtp testing on one of our trading application
> server using the frontend smtp tool, we are not able to send out mails
> internally to the mailserver, as the mailserver is rejecting with the
> following error message.
>
> warning: Illegal address syntax from
Wietse Venema escreveu:
(...)
Apart from that, if they come up with a decent MTA then I welcome
some competition. More motivation for me to look into postfix-lite.
That would be great, I have some servers wich sends nothing but
administrative mails to me, logcheck, crontab, such annoying thin
* Aravind M D :
>
> When we have done an smtp testing on one of our trading application
> server using the frontend smtp tool, we are not able to send out mails
> internally to the mailserver, as the mailserver is rejecting with the
> following error message.
>
> warning: Illegal address syntax f
When we have done an smtp testing on one of our trading application
server using the frontend smtp tool, we are not able to send out mails
internally to the mailserver, as the mailserver is rejecting with the
following error message.
warning: Illegal address syntax from unknown[ipaddress] in MAIL
Marcio Merlone:
> John Peach escreveu:
> > On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:56:38 +0200
> > Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >
> >> Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> >> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
> >
> > All political; no real rational reasoning for it
>
> I see no technical rea
John Peach wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:56:38 +0200
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Turns out Wietse was wrong:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
All political; no real rational reasoning for it
I'm not sure I would characterize a disagreement over licensing
Wietse Venema:
> Curtis:
> > In the mean time, it seems like using doing "postsuper -r" to re-activate
> > old queue files would be a good alternative. Hopefully that resolves the
> > expiration cycle issue that is caused when you inject a queue file directly
> > into the maildrop queue?
>
> If t
John Peach escreveu:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:56:38 +0200
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Turns out Wietse was wrong:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
All political; no real rational reasoning for it
I see no technical reason, but politics _sometimes_ are rat
Wietse Venema:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:02:37PM +0800, Norbert P. Copones wrote:
> >
> > > this setting is fine in 2.5 and it guarantees that smtp auth
> > > only operates in tls. this also prevents user at my domain
> > > from spoofing as it requires authentication.
> > >
> > Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
> All political; no real rational reasoning for it
I know, but still worth an informational message
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-15
On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:56:38 +0200
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
All political; no real rational reasoning for it
--
John
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:02:37PM +0800, Norbert P. Copones wrote:
>
> > this setting is fine in 2.5 and it guarantees that smtp auth
> > only operates in tls. this also prevents user at my domain
> > from spoofing as it requires authentication.
> >
> > however, a change in 2.
thanks. i already figured out the problem using 2.5 smtpd_check.c :)
cheers!
On 1531 0, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Try this patch:
Turns out Wietse was wrong:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschimpfung.de
I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck.
-- Rob Pike, co
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:02:37PM +0800, Norbert P. Copones wrote:
> this setting is fine in 2.5 and it guarantees that smtp auth
> only operates in tls. this also prevents user at my domain
> from spoofing as it requires authentication.
>
> however, a change in 2.6 in sasl broke this setup.
>
hello,
i just upgraded from postfix 2.5 to 2.6.1
i'm using dovecot for my sasl. an excerpt of my main.cf follows:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,
reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch,
reject_sender_login_mismatch,
..
54 matches
Mail list logo
