Here is my personal MX & MSA on single Linux box.
/etc/postfix/ is null
/etc/postfix-msa/ is the mail submission agent on port 587 and smpts on port
465
/etc/postfix-mx/ is the mail exchanger on port 25
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
# Mail Submission Agent (MSA)
# Mail Exchanger (MX)
master_service_d
Sorry about that. Stupid helpful mail program.
R's,
John
PS: What's worse is that I programmed the helpful bits myself.
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 22:19 -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> When Postfix' local delivery agent gets a mail, it drops it into the
> user's maildir folder, the user name is the user portion of the email
> address. But, how can I customize it so that all emails with the
> recipient address:
Here's some recipies for Postfix SUBMIT
--- Begin Message ---
On 11/8/2010 9:28 PM, John Levine wrote:
A friend is trying to set up a Postfix submit server on port 587, so
it requires SMTP AUTH but doesn't use the DNSBLs that his regular port
25 server uses.
This is surely a FAQ, but we must bot
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 19:15 -0800, Pablo Chamorro wrote:
> Please, a user of mine has an inbox of over 5 GB, with no limits in the
> Postfix inbox max_size:
>
> [root ~]# postconf -n |grep size
> mailbox_size_limit = 0
> message_size_limit = 2524
>
> I have no problems sending mail to other
The short question:
I'm looking for a way to store the headers of every message that passes through
my postfix system. Any pointers?
(I've read FAQ #45 and it seems to require me to enter the headers I want
flagged)
The longer and possibly un-needed explanation:
We have a ton of clients runnin
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 19:15:42 -0800, Pablo Chamorro wrote:
> When I do a simple: 'echo hello | mail -s test myuser', it goes to the
> Postfix queue and after some time, it gets bounced, but it seems also
> the email gets to the inbox too.
>
> Nov 8 18:48:35 correo postfix/local[11453]: 88CAF2D6A
On 11/8/2010 9:28 PM, John Levine wrote:
A friend is trying to set up a Postfix submit server on port 587, so
it requires SMTP AUTH but doesn't use the DNSBLs that his regular port
25 server uses.
This is surely a FAQ, but we must both be very nearsighted because we
can't find it. Can someone r
>> Do NOT look up rDNS in the DWL. If you do, you will get random
>> results, since we have no idea what rDNS our clients use.
>
>Noted. The feature is not SpamHaus specific, and other WLs may support
>rDNS domains, but we should perhaps add a note in the docs about SpamHaus,
>since your list will
A friend is trying to set up a Postfix submit server on port 587, so
it requires SMTP AUTH but doesn't use the DNSBLs that his regular port
25 server uses.
This is surely a FAQ, but we must both be very nearsighted because we
can't find it. Can someone remind us where it explains how to set up
a
Hi there,
When Postfix' local delivery agent gets a mail, it drops it into the
user's maildir folder, the user name is the user portion of the email
address. But, how can I customize it so that all emails with the
recipient address: postfixd...@domain get dropped into user "jsmith"
Maildir/?
W
Please, a user of mine has an inbox of over 5 GB, with no limits in the Postfix
inbox max_size:
[root ~]# postconf -n |grep size
mailbox_size_limit = 0
message_size_limit = 2524
I have no problems sending mail to other users, thus I think I'm having this
problem just for that user.
When I
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:32:25PM -0600, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 11:53 +1100, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> > On Tue, November 9, 2010 11:35 am, Larry Stone wrote:
> >
> > > There are plenty of instructions out there; try searching for "iphone
> > > install certificate". But in sh
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 11:53 +1100, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> On Tue, November 9, 2010 11:35 am, Larry Stone wrote:
>
> > There are plenty of instructions out there; try searching for "iphone
> > install certificate". But in short, e-mail the certificate to your iphone
> > and then double-"click" it j
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:53:17AM +1100, Voytek Eymont wrote:
> do I simply send the '/etc/postfix/tls/smtpd.crt' file 'as is',
> is that the one ?
Yes, that is key.
>
> # grep tls main.cf
> ...
> smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/postfix/tls/smtpd.key
> smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/postfix/tls/smtpd.cr
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:22:51PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message <20101107091813.21bf5104...@camomile.cloud9.net>,
> mouss wrote:
>
> >> Does anyone have an already-developed policd, either available as
> >> freeware or for sale that implements the above (rate limits& quota
Ronald F. Guilmette put forth on 11/8/2010 5:22 PM:
> 1) It appears that v1 was in C while v2 is in Perl. I never trust Perl
> for anything requiring high performance, so it seems to me to be kind
> of a shame that v2 is in Perl.
You may want to take another look at modern Perl. AFAIK
On Tue, November 9, 2010 11:35 am, Larry Stone wrote:
> There are plenty of instructions out there; try searching for "iphone
> install certificate". But in short, e-mail the certificate to your iphone
> and then double-"click" it just like opening any other attachment. The
> iPhone will then ope
On 11/8/10 5:07 PM, Voytek Eymont at li...@sbt.net.au wrote:
> I was asked 'how to setup iphone with our postix smtp-auth self-issued
> certificate server'
>
> does anyone have any instructions for iphone that they would share ?
There are plenty of instructions out there; try searching for "ipho
Wietse Venema:
> > This is now implemented with minor changes. [...]
>
> I have uploaded postfix-2.8-20101105-nonprod for testing (nonprod
> because this is SMTP server code, and I mostly rely on postscreen's
> DNS whitelisting feature).
Same code, now available as postf
Bastian Blank:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:21:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > There is code all over Postfix that sanity checks the syntax of
> > domains and address literals, and that code just cannot ever accept
> > datalink suffix junk.
>
> There is no junk in it.
>
> > That means having
On 11/8/2010 5:56 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
What is the best way to override the mx records that postfix
may find for a specific domain, say example.com.
Thanks,
Jeroen
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps
main.cf:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
# /etc/postf
What is the best way to override the mx records that postfix may find
for a specific domain, say example.com.
Thanks,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
In message <20101107091813.21bf5104...@camomile.cloud9.net>,
mouss wrote:
>> Does anyone have an already-developed policd, either available as
>> freeware or for sale that implements the above (rate limits& quotas)?
>
>Well, Stan meant an implementation, not a general concept :)
> http://w
Of course not.
The VPN runs over a very reliable link, provided by a complete different
provider.
On 11/08/2010 10:10 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
When the Internet is down those machines can comunica with the others
but not with the internet.
So, if the link goes down i
I was asked 'how to setup iphone with our postix smtp-auth self-issued
certificate server'
does anyone have any instructions for iphone that they would share ?
I don't have an iphone to explore, I borrowed an iphone, tried it myself,
it appears to be self-configuring, as after 2 or three tries, I
Le 08/11/2010 23:44, mouss a écrit :
Le 08/11/2010 10:51, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:05 AM:
yes i read the manual before, it's said "Virtual aliasing solves one
problem: it allows each domain to have its own info mail address. But
there still is one drawb
Le 08/11/2010 10:51, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:05 AM:
yes i read the manual before, it's said "Virtual aliasing solves one
problem: it allows each domain to have its own info mail address. But
there still is one drawback: each virtual address is aliased t
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:21:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> There is code all over Postfix that sanity checks the syntax of
> domains and address literals, and that code just cannot ever accept
> datalink suffix junk.
There is no junk in it.
> That means having to strip off the junk where it
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:21:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> There is code all over Postfix that sanity checks the syntax of
> domains and address literals, and that code just cannot ever accept
> datalink suffix junk.
>
> That means having to strip off the junk where it gets into Postfix,
>
Bastian Blank:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:13:45PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Postfix CIDR support uses standard system library routines such as
> > inet_pton(). I am reluctant to re-invent Postfix-specific versions.
> > Maybe there is some other library that does not barf on this?
>
> The
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:13:45PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix CIDR support uses standard system library routines such as
> inet_pton(). I am reluctant to re-invent Postfix-specific versions.
> Maybe there is some other library that does not barf on this?
The only parts of the glibc usi
On 11/08/2010 09:54 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
The packet routing solution is not feasible because those servers are
located in different cities, conected by a VPN.
That's entirely different than what you initially told us.
"In the same local network" does not mean "subject
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:54:18PM -0300, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado
wrote:
> But the setup I sugested is not :
>
> 1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
>
> It is :
>
> 1-2-3-4-5
>
> (Mach5 will be using the same internet link but it is not the same machine
> as Mach1. Mach5 will ahve no fallback rela
On 08.11.2010 21:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
Hi Wietse,
Nov 8 17:15:46 lxmhs17 postfix/smtpd[15061]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[fe80::250:56ff:fea9:2c72%vlan6]: 550 5.7.1 Client host rejected:
cannot find your reverse hostname, [fe80::250:56ff:fea9:2c72%vlan6];
from=<> to= proto=ESMTP
h
But the setup I sugested is not :
1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
It is :
1-2-3-4-5
(Mach5 will be using the same internet link but it is not the same machine as
Mach1. Mach5 will ahve no fallback relay.)
(
The packet routing solution is not feasible because those servers are located
in different cit
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:39:02PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The right solution to this problem is a packet routing solution,
> > not an SMTP message routing solution.
>
> Like setting the default route to the "right" gateway. That would
> be robust only if those gateways perform network a
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:32:00PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
When all links are down, you have a loop
1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
going at local network speeds.
But at least this will end really quickly :)
Mail should queue, not loop and bounce.
But what t
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:29:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > > Mach1)
> > >
> > > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
>
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:32:00PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > When all links are down, you have a loop
> >
> > 1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
> >
> > going at local network speeds.
>
> But at least this will end really quickly :)
Mail should queue, not loop and bounce.
--
Viktor.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:29:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > Mach1)
> >
> > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> > forward the pending emails t
* Wietse Venema :
> Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > Mach1)
> >
> > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> > forward the pending emails to Mach2 and they could be sent.
>
> When all
Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> Mach1)
>
> Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> forward the pending emails to Mach2 and they could be sent.
When all links are down, you have a loop
Yes, you're very right.
The scenario where none of the machines can send mail is (hopefully) remote.
However, I'll have to choose a "most reliable" link and set it's machine
as the last on the strip of fallback relays.
The worst situation will be when that link fails: all emails will
converge t
Bernhard Schmidt:
> Nov 8 17:15:46 lxmhs17 postfix/smtpd[15061]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[fe80::250:56ff:fea9:2c72%vlan6]: 550 5.7.1 Client host rejected:
> cannot find your reverse hostname, [fe80::250:56ff:fea9:2c72%vlan6];
> from=<> to= proto=ESMTP
> helo=
How do these systems find
>
> I'm working on Spamhaus' new whitelist where our goal is to list only
> mail sources clean enough that you can skip the rest of the filtering.
> (So far so good, but it's still pretty small.)
>
> You're welcome to use it. The IP address version is at swl.spamhaus.org.
>
> For people who lik
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
The fallback relays MUST be loop-free. Thus machine4 must NOT forward
back to machine1.
I was assuming that at least one machine CAN send mail :)
Your assumption is unwarranted, and fails to take into ac
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > The fallback relays MUST be loop-free. Thus machine4 must NOT forward
> > back to machine1.
>
> I was assuming that at least one machine CAN send mail :)
Your assumption is unwarranted, and fails to take into account the
possi
* Victor Duchovni :
> > Use smtp_fallback_relay for that.
> >
> > machine1
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine2]
> >
> > machine2
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine3]
> >
> > machine3
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine4]
> >
> > machine4
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine1]
>
> The fallback
Hi,
postfix 2.7.1 on SLES 10.3 i586 (probably not important, but who knows).
We run a production mailserver with reject_unknown_client_hostname
enabled (for a few years now). To deal with the unavoidable
misconfigurations we have a very large whitelist which was created
automatically from yea
On 11/08/2010 11:13 AM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
It is true?
What'll happen if I try it?
You mentioned this was on the same network. Just wondering, would it be
possible to do this at the router/network level?
-will
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 04:13:27PM -0300, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado
wrote:
> So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
You need to provide network redundancy at the network layer, using SMTP
forwarding to provide full-mesh network redundancy is not possible,
because you must
On 11/08/2010 08:13 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
That's an odd conclusion to draw from what Vicor said.
It is true?
um - no?
What'll happen if I try it?
What Victor said.
You could try a number of alternative solutio
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
It is true?
What'll happen if I try it?
Em 08/11/2010 16:09, Victor Duchovni escreveu:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:21:42PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix serve
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:21:42PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado :
> > I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
> > same local network but each one connected to a different internet
> > link, so that when one internet link fails, th
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:20:34PM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:30:33AM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> >
> >> . and indeed, telnetting to the Exchange server shows "AUTH GSSAPI
> >> NTLM" ...
> >
> > The Postfix SMTP client can do GSSAPI, if you place a suitable
>
On 11/08/2010 07:21 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
same local network but each one connected to a different internet
link, so that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server
connected
On 11/08/2010 06:43 PM, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
Why procmail is not executed ? Is there some priority or dependencies
for mailbox_command execution ?
Yes: the mail has to be delivered to a mailbox.
You are delivering mail to spamassassin.
You confused me : spamassassin leaves the messages fo
(2010年11月08日 13:19), Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the same
local network but each one connected to a different internet link, so
that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server connected to
the failing internet l
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado :
> I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
> same local network but each one connected to a different internet
> link, so that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server
> connected to the failing internet link forwards its pen
Thanks for the prompt response!
Victor Duchovni writes:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:30:33AM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
>> . and indeed, telnetting to the Exchange server shows "AUTH GSSAPI
>> NTLM" ...
>
> The Postfix SMTP client can do GSSAPI, if you place a suitable
> keytab on the Post
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the same
local network but each one connected to a different internet link, so
that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server connected to the
failing internet link forwards its pending emails to another Postfix
server, one w
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 02:48:03AM -, John Levine wrote:
> Do NOT look up rDNS in the DWL. If you do, you will get random
> results, since we have no idea what rDNS our clients use.
Noted. The feature is not SpamHaus specific, and other WLs may support
rDNS domains, but we should perhaps add
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 10:04:57AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Due to the DNS lookup latency inherent in incoming DKIM checks, doing
> > DKIM in post-queue content-filters is somewhat unattractive, as typically
> > one wants low-latency, modest concurrency in a post-queue filter.
>
> Another
Why procmail is not executed ? Is there some priority or dependencies
for mailbox_command execution ?
Yes: the mail has to be delivered to a mailbox.
You are delivering mail to spamassassin.
You confused me : spamassassin leaves the messages for local delivery
via /usr/local/sbin/sendmail -
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Liam wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>> The same Postfix program implements SMTP and LMTP.
>
> I concluded that the best way to learn the protocol is to write a server
> shell that prints its inputs and replies OK to everything :-)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 02:30:33AM +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> . and indeed, telnetting to the Exchange server shows "AUTH GSSAPI
> NTLM" ...
The Postfix SMTP client can do GSSAPI, if you place a suitable
keytab on the Postfix server, and use it from cron to keep a
credential cache file curre
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/8/2010 7:45 AM:
> * Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL :
>
>> 6.9. The file-max parameter
>
> This doesn't override the ulimit for the user starting postfix.
> But of course it needs to be increased as well, this is true.
Increased to what? On my low RAM Lenny b
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The same Postfix program implements SMTP and LMTP.
>
I concluded that the best way to learn the protocol is to write a server
shell that prints its inputs and replies OK to everything :-)
I'm also pondering use of an MQ engine between the
Walter Pinto writes:
> You would probably need to compile SASL with the required auth mechanisms.
Well, the SASL that ships with Mac OS X does have GSSAPI and NTLM
plugins. They just don't seem to get used.
--
Regards,
Mike
Sahil Tandon:
> On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 21:48:05 -0800, Liam wrote:
>
> > You mean read RFCs for SMTP, ESMTP, LMTP and diff them :-P
>
> Yes, instead of asking the members of the list to do that for you. And
> please do not top-post.
The same Postfix program implements SMTP and LMTP. This alone
i
Have you already looked at http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html ?
You would probably need to compile SASL with the required auth mechanisms.
I'm trying to get my Postfix client to work with an Exchange server -
I've tried a number of things suggested on the Internets and have
failed. I have the Postfix that ships with Mac OS X Snow Leopard, which
I believe to be 2.5.5. It comes precompiled against Cyrus SASL, and I
have this:
smtp_s
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 7:31 AM:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 4:08 AM:
>> "Have to"? There are alternatives, such as
>> http://www.ispconfig.org/ispconfig-3/
>>
>> In the absence of Virtualmin support for your m
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 21:48:05 -0800, Liam wrote:
> You mean read RFCs for SMTP, ESMTP, LMTP and diff them :-P
Yes, instead of asking the members of the list to do that for you. And
please do not top-post.
--
Sahil Tandon
Martin Bley:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > This work for 'date' header using IGNORE (or REPLACE changing the
> > header name) in header_checks, than cleanup will add a date header.
> > If doesn't wo
> This work for 'date' header using IGNORE (or REPLACE changing the
> header name) in header_checks, than cleanup will add a date header.
> If doesn't work the documentation should be fixed or I
> misunderstand?
as Wietse just mentioned to me, that behavior depends on the parameter
undisclosed_re
* Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL :
> 6.9. The file-max parameter
This doesn't override the ulimit for the user starting postfix.
But of course it needs to be increased as well, this is true.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berli
* Frank Bonnet :
>
> It depend on which Linux's version you use it seems
>
> I had this problem with Debian
So do I
> I've added the ulimit command INSIDE the script that launch
> Postfix to avoid the problem
This feels like cheating. For now I added it to /etc/default/postfix :)
--
Ralf H
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 4:08 AM:
>
>>> You won't have local system accounts. Just setup Postfix and Dovecot to
>>> query your current mysql domain and user database. It may take some
>>> tweaking, but what doesn't? ;)
>>>
>>
Reinaldo de Carvalho:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> >
> > The To: header is not a required header, and won't be added. You'll need
> > some milter or content_filter to rewrite the To: header.
This depends on the setting of undisclosed_recipients_header.
See http://www.pos
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> The To: header is not a required header, and won't be added. You'll need
> some milter or content_filter to rewrite the To: header.
>
>From Cleanup documentation:
The cleanup(8) daemon always performs the f
It depend on which Linux's version you use it seems
I had this problem with Debian
I've added the ulimit command INSIDE the script that launch
Postfix to avoid the problem
On 11/08/2010 01:15 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Using
% ulimit -n 8192
% postfix start
Postfix is working flawlessliy,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:37 AM:
>
>> i think it would reach to 12 thousands or less. yes we plan to do it
>> in one server but just for mailboxes only (pop3, imap, webmail), we
>> have another servers for the mx.
>
> 12,000 is
>-Original Message-
>From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
>On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
>Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 1:16 PM
>To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>Subject: fatal: socket: Too many open files
>Using
>% ulimit -n 8192
>% postf
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 4:08 AM:
>> You won't have local system accounts. Just setup Postfix and Dovecot to
>> query your current mysql domain and user database. It may take some
>> tweaking, but what doesn't? ;)
>>
>
> thanks for your reply stan,
>
> the problem is we have to
On 11/8/2010 5:43 AM, Martin Bley wrote:
Dear List,
another questin regarding rewrite rules. I want postfix to rewrite the
To: Header based on envelope to:
1st, I changed the parameter
local_header_rewrite_clients = permit_mynetworks
to do rewriting for all my local clients. In my understandi
Using
% ulimit -n 8192
% postfix start
Postfix is working flawlessliy, but how can I set the OS limits
"automagically"?
I already edited /etc/security/limits.conf to contain:
* hardnofile 8192
* softnofile 8192
but that results in the aforementioned "f
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:37 AM:
> i think it would reach to 12 thousands or less. yes we plan to do it
> in one server but just for mailboxes only (pop3, imap, webmail), we
> have another servers for the mx.
12,000 is a lot of users for one IMAP server. You'll definitely need
th
Dear List,
another questin regarding rewrite rules. I want postfix to rewrite the
To: Header based on envelope to:
1st, I changed the parameter
local_header_rewrite_clients = permit_mynetworks
to do rewriting for all my local clients. In my understanding, the
rewrite will then only be done,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:05 AM:
>
>> yes i read the manual before, it's said "Virtual aliasing solves one
>> problem: it allows each domain to have its own info mail address. But
>> there still is one drawback: each virtual ad
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:05 AM:
> yes i read the manual before, it's said "Virtual aliasing solves one
> problem: it allows each domain to have its own info mail address. But
> there still is one drawback: each virtual address is aliased to a UNIX
> system account. As you add more
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/7/2010 11:55 PM:
>> hello,
>>
>> currently i am new to postfix and at the moment i have a task to setup
>> mail server with postfix, dovecot and webmin.
>> this system would host hundreds of virtual domains, so
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/7/2010 11:55 PM:
> hello,
>
> currently i am new to postfix and at the moment i have a task to setup
> mail server with postfix, dovecot and webmin.
> this system would host hundreds of virtual domains, so thousands of
> virtual emails was expected.
"Thousands" of
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 06:55 AM, ahmad riza h nst wrote:
>>
>> hello,
>>
>> currently i am new to postfix and at the moment i have a task to setup
>> mail server with postfix, dovecot and webmin.
>>
>
> Ugh. Don't attempt to manage the system with web
Avinash Pawar // Viva put forth on 11/8/2010 12:12 AM:
> Hi,
>
> Nov 7 22:06:27 dell860-403 postfix/smtp[17076]: A35EAC130075: to=<
> rdcha...@indiatimes.com>, relay=rsmtp.indiatimes.com[223.165.24.11]:25,
> delay=3.6, delays=0/0/2.6/1, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 Message received:
> 201011080610
On 11/08/2010 06:55 AM, ahmad riza h nst wrote:
hello,
currently i am new to postfix and at the moment i have a task to setup
mail server with postfix, dovecot and webmin.
Ugh. Don't attempt to manage the system with webmin until you have solid
expierence in configuring it by hand.
In ot
98 matches
Mail list logo
