oliver sandmann:
> Hi
>
> I have the following setup:
>
> new postfixserver: sandmann.biz
> legacy email system: kosmann.net (I am not root here.)
>
> one email each: oli...@sandmann.biz
> oli...@kosmann.net
>
> normally every mail going to the old oli...@kosmann.net is
> copy-f
Our MX currently relays to one of two boxes (mail1, mail2) based on a
list of domains in transport_maps. Both mail1 and mail2 are ours, and we
have a full list of domains and recipients in relay_domains and
relay_recipient maps respectively.
Now, I would like to add a third, external, relay de
Hi
I have the following setup:
new postfixserver: sandmann.biz
legacy email system: kosmann.net (I am not root here.)
one email each: oli...@sandmann.biz
oli...@kosmann.net
normally every mail going to the old oli...@kosmann.net is
copy-forwarded to the new mail oli...@sandmann.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:05:36PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> main.cf:
> transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
> fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 2
> fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 1
> fragile_destination_rate_delay = 2s
Try:
# Change from 1 above
On 06/14/2010 11:54 AM, Florin Andrei wrote:
Well, that does it. I got RPM packages with 2.7 from two different
sources. Time for testing, then upgrade, and I'll keep y'all posted with
the results.
And here it is, the status update.
I got the 2.7.0 src.rpm packages made by Simon J Mudd
http:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0100, Guy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
> user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
> quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
> messages
Guy:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
> user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
> quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
> messages to the overquota account at that point. I could
Hi,
I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
messages to the overquota account at that point. I could do this by
instal
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * Wietse Venema :
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
> > > > > but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
> > >
I *never* said it was easy. I only said it should be possible on most
platforms. Also, I never said it was even necessary.
Thanks for the tech discussion, I even feel my neurons getting out of
lethargy! :)
On Jun 18, 2010 9:47 AM, "Victor Duchovni" <
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com> wrote:
On
Rob Foehl:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Indeed. One still needs tools to insert data into the database.
> > Does Postfix need to provide a minimal interface for this, or do we
> > assume that SQLite users will have adequate tools outside Postfix.
>
> It wouldn't hurt to omi
* Patrick Ben Koetter :
> > A "postmap" option to create an SQLite file would make sense.
>
> Do you mean creating an SQLite database from a flat file that, for example,
> contains access rules mapping addresses to actions (r...@foo REJECT)?
>
> What if there were many files that wanted to be
* Wietse Venema :
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> >
> > > > Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
> > > > but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
> > > > locking internally. That would
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Indeed. One still needs tools to insert data into the database.
Does Postfix need to provide a minimal interface for this, or do we
assume that SQLite users will have adequate tools outside Postfix.
It wouldn't hurt to omit this support for the time
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > > Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
> > > but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
> > > locking internally. That would allow us to avoid the problem
On 6/18/2010 12:07 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally. That would allow us to avoid
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
> > but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
> > locking internally. That would allow us to avoid the problems with
> > Postfix's extern
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
> > > also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
> > > OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
> >
> > I recommen
* Wietse Venema :
> Last weekend I talked with one of the creators of SQLite and was
> impressed by the thoroughness of their code quality process.
>
> I brushed up a patch that was circulated two years ago and spent
> a day or so adding error checks and updating documentation.
>
> Right now thi
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
> > also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
> > OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
>
> I recommend a different myhostname per "p
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > > I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view,
> > > although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see
> > > that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> > I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view,
> > although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see
> > that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between instances and I
> > have m
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco wrote:
> I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
> this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
> multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
>
> I am fine with the workarounds suppli
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:01:14AM -0500, Adam wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
> pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
> handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
> non-existent user, th
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:17:40AM -0430, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
> > The plug-ins you speak of are a Debian-specific feature, they are not
> > part of the official Postfix release and not available on most platforms.
>
> So most platforms "statically" link ldap support with post
Mark Goodge put forth on 6/18/2010 4:28 AM:
> 1. Just discard spam.
By this I hope you mean rejecting the message at SMTP time, not accept and
move to /dev/null.
Regarding the OP's original issue, im my experience, nearly all spam that has
a 'from' address matching the local 'to' address is bot
Last weekend I talked with one of the creators of SQLite and was
impressed by the thoroughness of their code quality process.
I brushed up a patch that was circulated two years ago and spent
a day or so adding error checks and updating documentation.
Right now this is a read-only implementation
> Work WITH the system, or else stop complaining.
>
> Wietse
I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
I am fine with the workarounds s
Wietse:
Thank you for the reply. Rest assured this was specifically for SASL
authenticated users. Non-authenticated users would have had an
unknown recipient rejected by the policy service.
I solved the issue by setting up virtual_mailbox_maps. My primary
reason for wanting to avoid that was A
Carlos Velasco:
> > I think this is a mistake, in the sense that it is a crude work-around.
> > The right solution is keep the "inet_interfaces" settings of Postfix
> > instances *disjoint*, and to never forward mail to port 25 *within*
> > an instance. This keeps things clear and predictable.
> >
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
>
>>> Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
>>> Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
>>> or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
>>
>> It could be good to ha
Adam:
> Good Morning,
>
> Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
> pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
> handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
> non-existent user, the mailer-daemon response to the sender is:
>
> :
Le 18/06/2010 11:51, Reko Turja a écrit :
I'm not a great fan of quarantining, although it works fairly well
for webmail systems where the quarantine can be accessed through the
same interface as the inbox (eg, Gmail and Hotmail). It's less
helpful where mail is delivered to a POP3 or IMAP box
Good Morning,
Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
non-existent user, the mailer-daemon response to the sender is:
: Command died with sta
I'm not a great fan of quarantining, although it works fairly well
for webmail systems where the quarantine can be accessed through the
same interface as the inbox (eg, Gmail and Hotmail). It's less
helpful where mail is delivered to a POP3 or IMAP box as users have
to go to a separate interfac
Le 18/06/2010 11:42, Erik Logtenberg a écrit :
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectiv
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
>> Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
>>> think my employer would not like it...
> Short answer:
> You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
> effectively make yourself a spam source. It's even worse when you att
On 18/06/2010 11:36, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Hi all,
I'm facing a stupid situation and I'm looking for advises. I'm using a
postfix relay to filter viruses and spams. All is working well except
with spam that use the same declared address for both sender and
recipient. What happened in this par
Le 18/06/2010 11:28, Mark Goodge a écrit :
On 18/06/2010 10:17, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications
but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyo
On 18/06/2010 10:17, Antoine Nguyen wrote:
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectivel
Le 18/06/2010 11:15, Michael Weissenbacher a écrit :
Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectively make yourself a spam source.
> Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
> > think my employer would not like it...
Short answer:
You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
effectively make yourself a spam source. It's even worse when you attach
the original message.
hth,
Mich
Hi all,
I'm facing a stupid situation and I'm looking for advises. I'm using a
postfix relay to filter viruses and spams. All is working well except
with spam that use the same declared address for both sender and
recipient. What happened in this particular situation is described as
follow:
43 matches
Mail list logo
