Dear postfix users,
I am struggeling with the concurency limit of postfix. We are using two
postfix MTAs. MTA one wants to deliver to MTA two and has 300 mails in
the queue.
Trying to flush the queue always results in the error
warning: Connection concurrency limit exceeded: 11 from xx[w.x.y
>Is it possible to execute a system command upon the following smtpd
client
>restriction rejections?
>
>smtpd_client_restrictions =
>reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname,
> reject_unknown_client_hostname
>
>Would like to automate insertion of client IP addre
Is it possible to execute a system command upon the following smtpd client
restriction rejections?
smtpd_client_restrictions =
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname,
reject_unknown_client_hostname
Would like to automate insertion of client IP address into IP
On 07/01/2010 10:19 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
I tried your command and it didn't take, I then ran what I posted and it seems
to have worked.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
So you
I tried your command and it didn't take, I then ran what I posted and it seems
to have worked.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
>
> On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
>> no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
>>
>
>
> So you tried it and it didn't work or you ra
On 7/1/2010 5:54 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
No it is not just one host it is many.
Ah. Apparently your firewall is breaking the mail
transaction. You either need to tell the firewall to not
interfere with SMTP, or fix it so it at least doesn't break
SMTP.
If you're not sure how to do thi
On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
So you tried it and it didn't work or you ran the command and it wasn't
correct?
-Matt
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
On 07/01/2010 07:02 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
af-cam-primary(c
On 07/01/2010 07:02 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# no fixup protocol smtp 25
I believe its: no inspect smtp
Most ASAs I'v
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# no fixup protocol smtp 25
I believe these are the defaults. Do I need to do esmtp too?
thanks,
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6
No it is not just one host it is many.
I have tried to confirm the users claim, and although he is a reliable source,
I wasn't able to replicate the issue.
The recipient did not get the email anyway, as far as I know. There was no
response, and in this case it was a customer service request.
On 07/01/2010 06:50 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Yes. Well actually an ASA 5520
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* James R. Marcus mailto:jmar...@edhance.com>>:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity
check. Here they are:
---
Po
On 07/01/2010 05:55 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check.
Here they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.22
Yes. Well actually an ASA 5520
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* James R. Marcus mailto:jmar...@edhance.com>>:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 p
On 7/1/2010 4:55 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a
sanity check. Here they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:2
* James R. Marcus :
> Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
> they are:
>
> ---
> Postfix Logs
> ---
> Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
> to=mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
> relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25, de
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25, delay=0.98, delays=0.01/0.01/0.33/0.62,
On 7/1/2010 4:40 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
I've e
On 07/01/2010 05:40 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
Ja
Thank you Noel, I'll try that and let you know.
Best regards.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/1/2010 4:14 AM, Rachid Abdelkhalak wrote:
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just
to give postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept
emails, but m
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
AHHH, thanks for that. hidden in my config
Sorry for the noise.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:06:29PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * David Hill :
> > soft_bounce = yes
>
> turn it off
>
> --
> Ralf Hildebrandt
> Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
> Charité - Universitätsmedizin
* David Hill :
> soft_bounce = yes
turn it off
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de |
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:46:19PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, David Hill wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>David Hill:
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
> >>>insert a default e
On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, David Hill wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
David Hill:
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the ser
On 7/1/2010 4:14 AM, Rachid Abdelkhalak wrote:
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just
to give postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept
emails, but my need is to prevent that an other person use an
other mail server to send emails using our domain. It mea
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> David Hill:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
> > insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
> > not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:00:09 +0200
Luigi Rosa wrote:
> What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
>
> If you set mailbox_size_limit to zero, what happens?
The configuration was partly copied from an old machine, this setting doesn't
make sense in this setup.
Changing th
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:03:23 -0400
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> global/mail_params.h
> 563:extern int var_mailbox_limit;
>
> Both of these parameters are signed integers as of Postfix 2.6.5 (and
> possibly later versions)
> Once you exceed 2,147,483,647; you get overflows.
This seems to
David Hill:
> Hello,
>
> I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
> insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
> not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.7.1.
>
> 220 mail.server.com ESMTP Postfix
> EHLO hostname
> 250-mail.ser
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.7.1.
220 mail.server.com ESMTP Postfix
EHLO hostname
250-mail.server.com
250-PIPELINING
250-SIZ
Srdan Dukic:
> Hi,
>
> I've got an email server which I use for testing various setups. I am now
> trying to get this server to soft bounce all mail for a particular address
> e.g. 'softbou...@example.com'. I am doing this to test whether the sending
> server is handling and reporting the soft bou
On 7/1/2010 1:39 PM, Roland Ramthun wrote:
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roland Ramthun said the following on 01/07/10 19:39:
> I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays
> messages to the primary.
What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
If you set mailbox_size_limi
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which should be sent to
m...@roland-ramthun.de.
This d
I think i have found the solution
the solution is to populate the /etc/postfix/virtual with user's emails
addresses maps before the catch-all
instead this
@company.tldall-us...@company.tld
fill this:
us...@company.tld us...@company.tld
us...@company.tld us...@company.tld
al
01.07.2010 18:13, David Touzeau:
> THanks to explain to me the process but what is for you the best
> settings to fix the situation ?
Hm, I have already said what I consider the best fix for the situation:
get rid of the catch-all and implement recipient validation.
--
Regards
mks
On 01/07/2010 17:59, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 17:38, David Touzeau:
this is the content of
/etc/postfix/mydestination
---
company.tld OK
/etc/postfix/aliases
---
user1:us...@company.tld
user2:us...@company.tld
al
01.07.2010 17:38, David Touzeau:
> this is the content of
>
> /etc/postfix/mydestination
> ---
> company.tld OK
>
> /etc/postfix/aliases
> ---
> user1:us...@company.tld
> user2:us...@company.tld
> all-users:all-us...@company.tld
>
On 01/07/2010 17:22, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 16:49, David Touzeau:
On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
Again:
What are the contents of /etc/postfix/mydestination? Did you postmap it?
And:
BTW: what's the point in explicitly setting so many configuration
variables
01.07.2010 16:49, David Touzeau:
> On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
Again:
>> What are the contents of /etc/postfix/mydestination? Did you postmap it?
And:
>> BTW: what's the point in explicitly setting so many configuration
>> variables to their default values?
> Jul 1 16:48:0
On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 15:48, David Touzeau:
here it is the postconf -n
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count = 3
01.07.2010 15:48, David Touzeau:
> here it is the postconf -n
>
> 2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
> address_verify_negative_cache = yes
> address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
> address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
> address_verify_poll_count = 3
> address_verify_poll_delay = 3s
> a
On 01/07/2010 15:17, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 14:40, David Touzeau:
here it is the main.cf
Post the output of
postconf -n
next time
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_t
Datatronics Gmail skrev 2010-07-01 15:06:
>
> Hello Everyone, i´m going to make it quick,
>
> **
> Problem #1
>
> We are receiving a lot of errors from the Queue of postfix, and emails are
> not going out, we are getting this error:
>
> host mx2.hotmail.c
01.07.2010 14:40, David Touzeau:
> here it is the main.cf
Post the output of
postconf -n
next time
> 2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
> address_verify_negative_cache = yes
> address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
> address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
> address_verify_poll_count = 3
Hello Everyone, i´m going to make it quick,
**
Problem #1
We are receiving a lot of errors from the Queue of postfix, and emails are
not going out, we are getting this error:
host mx2.hotmail.com[65.54.188.72] said: 451 Couldn't open temporary file
(in re
here it is the main.cf
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count = 3
address_verify_poll_delay = 3s
address_verify_positive_expire_time = 31d
address_verify
Hello Everyone, i´m going to make it quick,
We are receiving a lot of errors from the Queue of postfix, and emails are
not going out, we are getting this error:
host mx2.hotmail.com[65.54.188.72] said: 451 Couldn't open temporary file
(in reply to DATA command)
We have also seen that we have bee
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:39 AM, David Touzeau wrote:
> Dear
>
> I would like to redirect messages that recipient are not listed in aliases
> to a single mailbox
>
> have set
>
> virtual_alias_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
>
> use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
> use...@domain.tld use...@domain.
Thx a lot for the reply Victor, it clarified some of my doubts.
From your response to my last question I am assuming the scheduler
handles the proxymap process allocation and I don't need to care about
possible errors.
Just to clarify, you recommend to "not tune proxymap". Our system
require
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
>> The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow,
>> make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so
>> complex that they can only be resolved via a "table scan".
>>
> Is this also true for
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes
01.07.2010 10:49, David Touzeau:
> I would like to know if for this kind of virtual maps
>
> use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
> use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
> use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
> @domain.tld noexist...@domain.tld
>
> when i send an email to use...@domain.tld postfix s
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:15:10AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> More info. This is how the queues always look, it's a very typical batch:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/7MPIx.png
This graph has no scale, and would not be very interesting in any case.
Have you made attempt to sign-up for Yahoo's feedbac
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
> dues to the great input I got in this list :)
>
> I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal
> to the maxim
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just to give
postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept emails, but my need
is to prevent that an other person use an other mail server to send emails
using our domain. It mean i want to specify to postfix the servers th
Thanks for this information markus
I would like to know if for this kind of virtual maps
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
@domain.tld noexist...@domain.tld
when i send an email to use...@domain.tld postfix send to
noex
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes
equal to the maximum required during a burst situation. My question is:
could any of these fu
01.07.2010 00:07, David Touzeau:
> dear I know this is not a good idea but this is for an internal server
> in order to auto-create mailboxes.
> A script parse the catch-all mailbox and create the appropriate mailbox
>
> THe behavior is when i send mail to use...@domain.tld the catch-all
> tak
thank you, that is exactly what i was looking for..
J.Vitek
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:10 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/29/2010 10:58 AM, Jiri Vitek wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > i need configure postfix to handle just one incoming address(i can do
> > that without problem), and not sending it
61 matches
Mail list logo
