HI list
I am running two postfix instances:
0.0.0.0:25
127.0.0.1:10025
I want 0.0.0.0:25 to use virtual_transport = lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock
127.0.0.1:10025 to usevirtual_transport = dovecot
so I add
virtual_transport = lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock into /etc/postfix/main.cf and
add the
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> No. LDAP supports robust distributed caching via replication. If you
> want local caching on a MTA, field an LDAP replica on the MTA or
> dedicate a suitable replica on a nearby machine to the MTA.
>
> LDAP caching in the LDAP library was buggy, and has poor semantics.
>
On Thursday, July 02, 2009 at 06:53 CEST,
K bharathan wrote:
> can i delete a deferred queue for a specific site
What do you mean? Do you want to delete all messages destined to a
specific domain? What problem would that solve?
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
can i delete a deferred queue for a specific site
guidance appreciated
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> > Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer pcre:, but the following patterns should work with regexp:
> > > as well.
>
> No, {n} isn't supported by regexp.
It is. As noted in regexp_table(5), each pattern is a POSIX regular
expression, whose syntax is doc
My apologies, I must have missed something in the Dovecot configs.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Adam Tucker wrote:
>>
>> I recently installed and configured postfix on a new server that will
>> be replacing our old mail server.
Adam Tucker wrote:
I recently installed and configured postfix on a new server that will
be replacing our old mail server. The old server is running version
2.2.10 and the new one has 2.3.3.
It's working well, and I tried to duplicate the configuration as much
as possible, but there is one quir
I recently installed and configured postfix on a new server that will
be replacing our old mail server. The old server is running version
2.2.10 and the new one has 2.3.3.
It's working well, and I tried to duplicate the configuration as much
as possible, but there is one quirk I have not been abl
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:50:02PM -0700, Rob Brandt wrote:
>
>
> Jan P. Kessler wrote, On 7/1/2009 12:34 PM:
>>> Bingo:
>>>
>>> -o
>>> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
>>>
>>>
>>> Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
>>>
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
In the future, when I install postfix, will the correct symlinks be
created for me, if sendmail is not present, or is this something I
have to do manually? (I am using a an RPM from CentOS extras compiled
with MySQL support).
This is a distribution question th
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> You have identified the problem. Thanks!
>
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> Where are your logs for such an event?
>
> Looking at the logs again I observed that some of the entries were in
> fact from sendmail.
>
> I was puzzled at first, because the sendmail daemon
Jan P. Kessler wrote, On 7/1/2009 12:34 PM:
Bingo:
-o
receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
-o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
header_checks will be executed t
You have identified the problem. Thanks!
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I've tried setting the variables mydomain and myhostname to the
correct public domain names in main.cf, but the server still
identifies itself as ip-xx-xx-xx-xx.ec2.internal.
Are you sure you do not have another MTA such
On 7/1/09 1:49 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
Otherwise, just block the suckers and move on. You probably have
better things to do with your time.
Good point, well taken. Thank you all.
--
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com
In general this is a bad idea and you should stop doing it
immediately. In the best case it would be seen by the other side as
an attack on them from you. In the worst case they might retaliate
even more against you with some other kind of attack. Considering
that over 80% of spam is now sent by
ghe schrieb:
> Wietse says something like "Spam is war -- RFCs don't apply." OK, but
> how about nmap ethics?
>
> I've started hitting spam IPs and their nets with nmap to find out who
> they are and maybe a little of what they're up to (and using the info
> to decide if the net belongs in my packe
At 12:37 PM 7/1/2009, you wrote:
Wietse says something like "Spam is war -- RFCs don't apply." OK,
but how about nmap ethics?
I've started hitting spam IPs and their nets with nmap to find out
who they are and maybe a little of what they're up to (and using the
info to decide if the net belon
Wietse says something like "Spam is war -- RFCs don't apply." OK, but
how about nmap ethics?
I've started hitting spam IPs and their nets with nmap to find out who
they are and maybe a little of what they're up to (and using the info to
decide if the net belongs in my packet filter). What's th
> Bingo:
>
> -o
> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
>
>
> Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
>
> -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
header_checks will be executed twice
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote, On 7/1/2009 10:40 AM:
Do you have anything like:
"receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks" in master.cf for the
content_filter reinjection?
This will not match if so.
Bingo:
-o
receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_che
> Rob Brandt wrote, On 7/1/2009 9:09 AM:
>
>>
>> Excellent, I now get a match using postmap. If the spam doesn't cease,
>> I'll be back. Thanks everyone!
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> Nuts. I am still getting spam. Is there any reason header_checks might
> not be enabled? Is header_checks being run before
Rob Brandt wrote:
>
>
> Rob Brandt wrote, On 7/1/2009 9:09 AM:
>
>>
>> Excellent, I now get a match using postmap. If the spam doesn't
>> cease, I'll be back. Thanks everyone!
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> Nuts. I am still getting spam. Is there any reason header_checks
> might not be enabled? Is header_ch
Rob Brandt wrote, On 7/1/2009 9:09 AM:
Excellent, I now get a match using postmap. If the spam doesn't cease,
I'll be back. Thanks everyone!
Rob
Nuts. I am still getting spam. Is there any reason header_checks might
not be enabled? Is header_checks being run before SA processes it
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have enabled "sender_bcc_maps" in my main.cf. The lookup file has just
> 2 entries.
What fraction of your traffic is sent by these 2 entries. Do you have
content filters downstream of the cleanup service that adds t
Magnus Bäck wrote, On 6/30/2009 11:39 PM:
On Wed, July 1, 2009 8:13 am, Rob Brandt said:
Could I get an example of how to use postmap -q? I have tried:
postmap -q "X-Spam-Flag: YES" /etc/postfix/header_checks
where "X-Spam-Flag: YES" is the header I am trying to check and
/etc/postfix/head
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:07:11AM +0200, Ihsan Dogan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While running a few test I've noticed, that Postfix does not cache any
> LDAP queries. As far I can see, I can limit the number of simultaneous
> queries with proxymap, but is it possible to cache the LDAP queries?
>
> I'v
Jason Bailey, Sun Advocate Webmaster wrote:
Rob Brandt wrote:
I'm trying to set up a basic header check to get rid of emails sa
marks as spam. I've added the following link to main.cf:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/filter
/etc/postfix/filter has:
# No ***SPAM***
/^Subject .*\*\*\*SPA
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> I've tried setting the variables mydomain and myhostname to the
> correct public domain names in main.cf, but the server still
> identifies itself as ip-xx-xx-xx-xx.ec2.internal.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
Are you sure you do not have another MTA such a
Hello,
I have enabled "sender_bcc_maps" in my main.cf. The lookup file has just
2 entries.
I have noticed that the number of message in active queue grews as soon
as I enable this feature.
Is it so expensive? I otherwise can't figure out why active queues
grows. Infact, I have verified that no c
2009/6/30 Ralf Hildebrandt :
> That would make sense. Some decision process in that stage to find out
> if the mail needs to be signed...
>
> Maybe that kind of lookup is slow?
It certainly looks like it.
> I set it up according to the readme:
>
> dkim_key('charite.de', 'default', '/etc/ssl/priv
On Wed, July 1, 2009 10:04 am, Hervé Hénoch said:
> I have the following problem. My postfix use a virtual ldap database for
> domain, accounts and aliases (postfix +amavisd-new +dovecot +
> spamassassin + clamav)
>
> I want to do a blind copy from a virtual user to another user outside of
> my do
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 01, 2009 at 07:02 CEST,
> Rob Brandt wrote:
>
>
> > Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer pcre:, but the following patterns should work with regexp:
> > > as well.
>
> No, {n} isn't supported by regexp.
I too was surprised tha
Indeed that would be very interested. By the way i am using proxymap for
ldap:tables and saw the ldap server running much smoothly now.
Bill
Ihsan Dogan wrote:
Hello,
While running a few test I've noticed, that Postfix does not cache any
LDAP queries. As far I can see, I can limit the number
Hello,
While running a few test I've noticed, that Postfix does not cache any
LDAP queries. As far I can see, I can limit the number of simultaneous
queries with proxymap, but is it possible to cache the LDAP queries?
I've noticed that according to ldap_table(5) the cache statement was
removed. I
I have the following problem. My postfix use a virtual ldap database for
domain, accounts and aliases (postfix +amavisd-new +dovecot +
spamassassin + clamav)
I want to do a blind copy from a virtual user to another user outside of
my domain.
So I've added in main.cf :
recipient_bcc_maps = ha
Ralf Hildebrandt escribió:
> * Ignacio Vazquez :
>
>
>> It seems like postfix doesn't like two transports (regexp and hash) in the
>> transport_maps...
>>
>
> No, that works like a charm
>
>
I think I found where is the problem...
In SRV2 (the internal server) i have:
cat /etc/postfix/t
R Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 23:58 -0600, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
my post, I have tried setting
myhostname = mail.mydomain.com
with no effect (server still identifies itself using the internal
name).
Try this in main.cf JT;
# myhostname gives this externally
myhostname = mai
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Victor
Duchovni wrote:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> ...
>> check_recipient_access
>>hash:$config_directory/tables/smtpd_allow_nullroute
> Only necessary if you have later restrictions that can block
> mail to this recipient.
38 matches
Mail list logo
