On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 05:37 CEST,
kazabe wrote:
> My boss was request me to stop the mails related with non laborals
> contents.
>
> Specifically wanna stop all the emails related with videos, jokes,
> funny pictures, etc. We detect to any email with 12 or more address
> destina
Thank you for your answer Sahil.
In fact I don't fully understand the problem.
Do you mean I have to have a "*static* libdb library" inorder to compile my
Postfix in static linking?
2010/8/11 Sahil Tandon
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:10:31 +0800, damian lee wrote:
>
> > recently I am trying to c
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:10:31 +0800, damian lee wrote:
> recently I am trying to compile postfix in static linking so I can move
> around the server without any dependency.
>
> I tried to pass the -static to the gcc compiler with
>
> make makefiles CC='gcc -Wmissing-prototypes' OPT='-static -O'
Hi
My boss was request me to stop the mails related with non laborals contents.
Specifically wanna stop all the emails related with videos, jokes,
funny pictures, etc. We detect to any email with 12 or more address
destination in the body, always have non laboral content.
Is possible evaluate t
Hello everyone,
recently I am trying to compile postfix in static linking so I can move
around the server without any dependency.
I tried to pass the -static to the gcc compiler with
make makefiles CC='gcc -Wmissing-prototypes' OPT='-static -O' DEBUG='-g'
when I do make command, it always jump
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:12 PM
> To: postfix users
> Subject: Re: Postfix MX Real-Time Anit-SPAM Firewall
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Au
Please don't top-post.
--
From: "Noel Jones"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: smtpd_delay_reject = yes & Reject Logging
On 8/10/2010 3:19 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
When using the “smtpd_delay_reject = yes” opt
"I think he just wants to know which smtpd restrictions list contains the
rule that caused the rejection."
Correct.
--
From: "Michael Orlitzky"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: smtpd_delay_reject = yes & Reject Logging
O
In an older episode, on 2010-08-10 23:06, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
You still have to look up which restrictions list contains that rule,
though.
Yes, there could be different check_sender_access rules - even without
smtpd_delay_reject it would be hard to see WHICH ONE fired.
They way I do this
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 2:59 AM, Jacqui Caren-home wrote:
>>
>> Udo Rader wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/07/2010 05:40 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> See Zip Attachment
>>
>> I assumed this was a
* Michael Orlitzky :
> I think he just wants to know which smtpd restrictions list contains
> the rule that caused the rejection.
Could be.
> An almost-answer: each reject_foo rule has a certain log format
> which, once learned, will give you a pretty good idea about the rule
> that caused the
On 08/10/2010 04:46 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* junkyardma...@verizon.net:
Yes it does cause a problem.
It does not indicate the stage the rejection is associated with
(CONNECT, HELO, FROM, RCPT, etc.).
The rejection always happens at the RCPT TO stage in those cases.
Thus it's called "smtpd
* junkyardma...@verizon.net :
> Yes it does cause a problem.
> It does not indicate the stage the rejection is associated with
> (CONNECT, HELO, FROM, RCPT, etc.).
The rejection always happens at the RCPT TO stage in those cases.
Thus it's called "smtpd_delay_reject".
Back in the dawn of Postfix
Technically correct yet totally useless. You would be perfect Microsoft
employee.
(lookup the joke about helicopter pilot and Microsoft)
--
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: smtpd_delay_reject = yes
Yes it does cause a problem.
It does not indicate the stage the rejection is associated with (CONNECT,
HELO, FROM, RCPT, etc.).
--
From: "Noel Jones"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: smtpd_delay_reject = yes & Reject Loggi
On 8/10/2010 3:19 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
When using the “smtpd_delay_reject = yes” option, all log
messages indicate RCPT stage rejection. e.g. “... NOQUEUE:
reject: RCPT from ...”; regardless of which type of
restriction an option is listed under.
For instance a rejection based on
* junkyardma...@verizon.net :
> When using the "smtpd_delay_reject = yes" option, all log messages indicate
> RCPT stage rejection. e.g. "... NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from ..."; regardless
> of which type of restriction an option is listed under.
>
> For instance a rejection based on the following
When using the "smtpd_delay_reject = yes" option, all log messages indicate
RCPT stage rejection. e.g. "... NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from ..."; regardless of
which type of restriction an option is listed under.
For instance a rejection based on the following will indicate RCPT rather than
CONNECT
Got it fixed! Simply solution. Just create a zfs file system for the
pqueues with a modest amount of reservation size. I did 20Gb.
On 8/10/10 11:34 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
On 8/10/2010 12:29 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
CJ Keist:
I'm trying to install postfix-2.7.2-RC2 on Solar
I'll provide my config, but keep in mind, the entire process is based
on a scoring system which will vary from setup to setup. It's highly
likely you will have to tweak the scores based on your specific needs.
Below is my config, you can view the default settings by typing
'policyd-weight defaults'
Thanks, how do I compile to use statvfs64?
On 8/10/10 11:34 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
On 8/10/2010 12:29 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
CJ Keist:
I'm trying to install postfix-2.7.2-RC2 on Solaris 10 sparc system.
Make and install goes through fine. postfix starts up with no errors.
On 8/10/2010 1:00 PM, Walter Pinto wrote:
Sure, what's the policy on this list for that? Attachment or just copy/paste?
(either a text attachment or a copy/paste is fine.)
On 08/10/2010 10:05 AM, Bjorn Mork wrote:
Hi,
can POSTFIX handle load of 120k mailboxes
Since "postfix" has relatively little to do with "mailboxes", and a
"mailbox" is most definitely not a unit of load, I'd say... VERMILION.
These mailboxes/accounts presumably have users associated wit
Sure, what's the policy on this list for that? Attachment or just copy/paste?
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Walter Pinto
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:20 AM
> To: postfix users
> Subject: Re: How to reject bad hosts
>
> I also can vouch for policyd-weight , with a bit of c
On 8/10/2010 12:29 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
CJ Keist:
I'm trying to install postfix-2.7.2-RC2 on Solaris 10 sparc system.
Make and install goes through fine. postfix starts up with no errors.
But getting the following errors in the log file:
Aug 10 09:58:43 mail1 postfix/smtpd[173]: [ID 94773
CJ Keist:
> I'm trying to install postfix-2.7.2-RC2 on Solaris 10 sparc system.
> Make and install goes through fine. postfix starts up with no errors.
> But getting the following errors in the log file:
>
> Aug 10 09:58:43 mail1 postfix/smtpd[173]: [ID 947731 mail.crit] fatal:
> statvfs .:
I'm trying to install postfix-2.7.2-RC2 on Solaris 10 sparc system.
Make and install goes through fine. postfix starts up with no errors.
But getting the following errors in the log file:
Aug 10 09:58:43 mail1 postfix/smtpd[173]: [ID 947731 mail.crit] fatal:
statvfs .: Value too large for d
Phill Macey:
> On 10 August 2010 21:35, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > When you have a many-recipient "all" alias, you need to set up an
> > "owner-all" alias in the alias database (with the right-hand side
> > being the adminstrator of the "all" list). Besides changing the
> > way errors are reporte
On 10 August 2010 21:35, Wietse Venema wrote:
> When you have a many-recipient "all" alias, you need to set up an
> "owner-all" alias in the alias database (with the right-hand side
> being the adminstrator of the "all" list). Besides changing the
> way errors are reported, this also triggers a d
Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 8/10/2010 6:37 AM:
> * Bjorn Mork :
>> i have tried to answer your queris, (Please correct, if I am wrong in
>> understanding your question...)
>>
>> We do have multiple IBM Blade server with 2.4 Xeon + 16GB + NAS over iSCSI
>> protocol..
>>
>> How many blades w
On 8/10/2010 2:59 AM, Jacqui Caren-home wrote:
Udo Rader wrote:
On 08/07/2010 05:40 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
See Zip Attachment
I assumed this was a infection generated zip file...
I certainly had no intention of looking at it and from the
Hello Wietse,
have not been aware of the difference. Added the owner-alias and will
keep an eye on the list.
Thanks a lot
Dominik
> Dominik Storck:
>> Hello Wietse,
>>
>> I have been looking for these error messages over and over before I
>> started digging deeper. There are none of the error,
* Bjorn Mork :
> i have tried to answer your queris, (Please correct, if I am wrong in
> understanding your question...)
>
> We do have multiple IBM Blade server with 2.4 Xeon + 16GB + NAS over iSCSI
> protocol..
>
> How many blades will be involved for such load???
I would have to specu
Dominik Storck:
> Hello Wietse,
>
> I have been looking for these error messages over and over before I
> started digging deeper. There are none of the error,fatal,warning or
> panic messages before. The first error log entry to occur is the unknown
> mail transport error, really.
Looking at t
p...@tric,
i have tried to answer your queris, (Please correct, if I am wrong in
understanding your question...)
We do have multiple IBM Blade server with 2.4 Xeon + 16GB + NAS over iSCSI
protocol..
How many blades will be involved for such load???
Can you please suggest its logical arch
* Bjorn Mork :
> can POSTFIX handle load of 120k mailboxesWhat would be required
> additional with postfix to bear such load
You can run multiple Postfix machines to deal with the load.
But more imporant with all, but especially with 120k mailboxes the questions
are not load alone:
- Wha
Hi,
can POSTFIX handle load of 120k mailboxesWhat would be required
additional with postfix to bear such load
BMork
Udo Rader wrote:
On 08/07/2010 05:40 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
See Zip Attachment
I assumed this was a infection generated zip file...
I certainly had no intention of looking at it and from the email profile it would have
been bounced by wo
39 matches
Mail list logo
