The only difference I would have on this server is I would make it a 10 raid
and not raid5. This is a much more higher performing with all the writes to
maildir. Its also better fault tolerance.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 4:08
Jeroen, thank you for taking time to answer.
The problem was that I have put /sbin/nologin for a login shell
instead of /bin/false. Don't ask, why on Earth did I do that (I'm
asking that myself). Anyway, with this changed, mail goes through as
expected. The moral being, don't work too long hours.
Hey everyone,
Does anyone have any good documentation on how to rewrite the
envelope_sender based on an regexp map?
I need to do the following. I have an application that is broken, and
sets the "mail from" envelope-sender value to "From:user"@domain.tld.
Obviously the quotes and use of From: in
>Sadly, the opendkim library does not support applying two signatures in
>parallel (set up two signing contexts, pass the message content through
>once, get two sigatures). So I have to pass the message through the
>library twice, to apply two signatures. Not a show-stopper, but annoying.
If we as
/dev/rob0:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:13:01PM -0800, Bryan Harrison wrote:
> > Viktor:
> > > Perhaps the original domain is incorrectly listed in
> > > $mydestination
> >
> > I have no mydestination entry. Can I use one to force the correct
> > behavior?
>
> Not listing mydestination in main
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:13:01PM -0800, Bryan Harrison wrote:
> Viktor:
> > Perhaps the original domain is incorrectly listed in
> > $mydestination
>
> I have no mydestination entry. Can I use one to force the correct
> behavior?
Not listing mydestination in main.cf means you get the default
Will Fong put forth on 11/9/2010 6:57 PM:
> On 11/09/2010 04:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> The Proliant Dl180 g6 box he has will scale to 192GB RAM in 12 DIMM
>> slots, but getting it there gets expensive due to the cost/DIMM at 16GB
>> density. Using fairly inexpensive 4GB DIMMS he could occupy
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Will Fong wrote:
> On 11/09/2010 04:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> The Proliant Dl180 g6 box he has will scale to 192GB RAM in 12 DIMM
>> slots, but getting it there gets expensive due to the cost/DIMM at 16GB
>> density. Using fairly inexpensive 4GB DIMMS he c
On 11/09/2010 04:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
The Proliant Dl180 g6 box he has will scale to 192GB RAM in 12 DIMM
slots, but getting it there gets expensive due to the cost/DIMM at 16GB
density. Using fairly inexpensive 4GB DIMMS he could occupy 6 of the 12
slots for a 24GB capacity. That should
Kris Deugau put forth on 11/9/2010 11:07 AM:
> That said... Yeah, upgrade the hardware now - I'd even say go for more
> than 8G of RAM if you can stuff it in, because if you're running a
> memory hog like SpamAssassin on the same machine as your core mail
> daemons and webmail, you'll need it soo
Thanks. I'm reassured to find you thinking along the same lines.
> and the bare user-name "bryan" is listed in "virtual_alias_maps".
Alas, not. In the test configuration, I've deliberately left
virtual_alias_maps empty. The aliases are all in a shared LDAP domain, and
there is no "bryan"
On Tue, November 9, 2010 11:35 am, Larry Stone wrote:
> On 11/8/10 5:07 PM, Voytek Eymont at li...@sbt.net.au 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 jus
Le 09/11/2010 11:33, Nick Edwards a écrit :
"Make sure your PTR and A records match. For every IP address, there
should be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain. If a host is
multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP addresses
have a corresponding PTR record (not ju
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:51:22PM -0800, Bryan Harrison wrote:
> Nov 2 12:14:27 wheat postfix/cleanup[48580]: 5177C28C01B:
> message-id=
This cleanup service rewrote the original recipient:
orig_to=
to the final recipient:
> to=,
as evidenced by this log entry, which shows the me
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:40:34PM -0800, motty.cruz wrote:
> I created it by hand! I was scared to break my configuration, that why I did
> not user "postmulti -e create/import.." command as suggested in
> http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html#default_instance
You were scared to do
> Please post a shorter problem description with relevant log entries, postconf
> -n output and all relevant table entries.
I accept full responsibility for the fact that my post was so wordy it was easy
to miss that it contains everything you've requested except the log entries.
;) Once more
I created it by hand! I was scared to break my configuration, that why I did
not user "postmulti -e create/import.." command as suggested in
http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html#default_instance
I deleted the primary instance and it works fine.
Thank you Viktor,
-Motty
-Origi
Le 09/11/2010 18:15, Toomas Vendelin a écrit :
Hi there!
I run Postfix on CentOS 5.5 with virtual domains. Mail is supposed to
be delivered to maildirs. Everything worked with a sendmail/mbox setup
for the same domain, so MX issues can be eliminated immediately :)
I'm trying to set up a virtual
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:16:31PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>> multi_instance_directories = /usr/local/etc/postfix
>> /usr/local/etc/postfix-out
Did you set this by hand? Or use "postmulti -e create/import/..."
to populate the list? The primary instance should not list itself in
the multi_instance_di
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
Le 09/11/2010 20:13, motty.cruz a écrit :
Hello,
I have a server running with two instance of Postfix named postfix-in and
postfix-out however when I enter the following command
# postfix status
postfix-in/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 1241
postfix-in/postfix-script: th
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:50:41AM -0800, Bryan Harrison wrote:
> I?ve moderate expertise with Postfix and sys admin in general, and after 10
> days of beating my head against this particular brick wall am posting this
> overly long, rather tedious question because I?ve exhausted my other
> res
I’ve moderate expertise with Postfix and sys admin in general, and after 10
days of beating my head against this particular brick wall am posting this
overly long, rather tedious question because I’ve exhausted my other resources
but am not quite ready to throw in the towel.
That said…
Here’
On 11/09/2010 06:15 PM, Toomas Vendelin wrote:
Hi there!
I run Postfix on CentOS 5.5 with virtual domains. Mail is supposed to
be delivered to maildirs.
Don't you mean "I have configured postfix to deliver to maildirs".
If that's not what you mean, it's an unwarranted - and quite dangerous -
Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps
Thank you. I know this is an "rtfm" type of question but I appreciate
the pointer, just was short on time to figure it out myself.
Thanks,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~ri
Hello,
I have a server running with two instance of Postfix named postfix-in and
postfix-out however when I enter the following command
# postfix status
postfix-in/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 1241
postfix-in/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 1241
Victor Duchovni wrote:
However, I don't know if postfix checks smtpd_recipient_restrictions before
calling milters or after. I suppose before, but I'm not sure. Wietse ???
The "RCPT TO" command is passed to the milter after Postfix restriction
processing. Even rejected commands are are passed
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 06:30:51PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 11/9/2010 8:39 AM, Lima Union wrote:
>
>> clamav-milter operates on the message data, so all postfix
>> smtpd_*_restrictions -- which operate on the envelope -- will get a chance
>> to reject m
"Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz" wrote:
>Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 11/9/2010 8:39 AM, Lima Union wrote:
>
>>
>> clamav-milter operates on the message data, so all postfix
>> smtpd_*_restrictions -- which operate on the envelope -- will get a
>> chance to reject mail before the data is transmitted
Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/9/2010 8:39 AM, Lima Union wrote:
clamav-milter operates on the message data, so all postfix
smtpd_*_restrictions -- which operate on the envelope -- will get a
chance to reject mail before the data is transmitted.
sid-milter operates on the envelope. It will prob
>> Last doubt, as far as I understand from the documentation, the milter
>> processing happends in smtpd(8) before the
>> 'smtpd_recipient_restrictions' (cleanup(8)) check. Thus if I keep my
>> current configuration for my new setup, using smtpd_milters and
>> postgrey (under 'smtpd_recipient_restr
--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> From: Sahil Tandon
> Subject: Re: status=bounced (Command time limit exceeded: "/usr/bin/procmail")
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Monday, November 8, 2010, 8:35 PM
> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 19:15:42 -0800,
> Pablo Chamorro wrote:
>
> > When I d
Hi there!
I run Postfix on CentOS 5.5 with virtual domains. Mail is supposed to
be delivered to maildirs. Everything worked with a sendmail/mbox setup
for the same domain, so MX issues can be eliminated immediately :)
I'm trying to set up a virtual mail hosting on a testing machine,
following the
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
ahmad riza h nst put forth on 11/8/2010 3:05 AM:
our hardware is hp dl180 g6 (a xeon quad core + raid 1 + 4G ram)
Ok, that answers one of my previous questions. This system isn't nearly
strong enough for thousands of users.
IBTD.
I had PII/450 with ~768M of RAM, and a
On 11/9/2010 8:39 AM, Lima Union wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/9/2010 6:18 AM, Lima Union wrote:
hi all! as the subject says I have two noob questions:
(1) if I configure something like 'smtpd_milters =
inet:localhost:10025 inet:localhost:10034' does Postfix
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:29:09PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:14:01AM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
>
> > I can't seem to get postfix to match that header:
> >
> > Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Vos_Factures_arrivant_a_=C3=A9ch=C3=A9ance_-_FR0905249?=
> >
> > with thi
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:37:33PM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> I get a match from postmap. Yet postfix does not block the message...
You have disabled header checks via "receive_override_options" or by
overriding "header_checks" in master.cf, ...
--
Viktor.
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:44:55AM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:37:33PM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
>
> > I get a match from postmap. Yet postfix does not block the message...
>
> You have disabled header checks via "receive_override_options" or by
> overrid
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:34:09AM -, John Levine wrote:
> >Does it make sense in your view to use the "From:" domain to sign
> >*all* mail, and not add that domain to the DNSWL, while reserving
> >a sub-domain (that never matches "From:") for the good senders, and
> >applying a *second* signa
Zitat von Ralf Hildebrandt :
* Stan Hoeppner :
> Ah OK. Didn't see that, honestly :(
I think Ralf's body has been taken over by some alien entity Postfix
nub. A coauthor of "The Book of Postfix" shouldn't be asking so many
questions of late, but answering them. :)
In my defense: I'm havin
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 06:39:15AM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
> > NO, NO, NO!
> >
> > A pkcs12 file carries both the private key and the certificate, in
> > this case the phone needs only a public certificate to add to its trust
> > chain. It MUST NOT have access to the server's private key.
> >
* lst_ho...@kwsoft.de :
> Never work when being ill. You spent a lot of your valuable health
> time later on to debug the mess you have done with medicine clouded
> head...
No medicine, I merely infect the coworkers.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Uni
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/9/2010 4:50 AM:
> * Wietse Venema :
>> Ralf Hildebrandt:
>>> Which headers are deemed worthy? Why can't I add an X-anything: header?
>>
>> RTFM.
>>
>> BOUNCE(5)
>> BOUNCE(5)
>> ...
>> TEMPLATE FILE FORMAT
>
hi all! as the subject says I have two noob questions:
(1) if I configure something like 'smtpd_milters =
inet:localhost:10025 inet:localhost:10034' does Postfix respect the
order? I mean, will it processs the mail in order, first milter then
second milter or what? for example, in this case 10025 i
On 11/9/2010 6:18 AM, Lima Union wrote:
hi all! as the subject says I have two noob questions:
(1) if I configure something like 'smtpd_milters =
inet:localhost:10025 inet:localhost:10034' does Postfix respect the
order? I mean, will it processs the mail in order, first milter then
second milter
Hi and thanks for your reply,
What does it take to write a content filter that does this and will it
slow down the postfix server? I guess that all messages has to go pass
the filter.
Its about 100 shared mailboxes and 300 senders and I know witch users
that sends from the shared mailboxes.
Any poi
--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> From: Sahil Tandon
> Subject: Re: status=bounced (Command time limit exceeded: "/usr/bin/procmail")
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Monday, November 8, 2010, 8:35 PM
> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 19:15:42 -0800,
> Pablo Chamorro wrote:
>
> > When I d
On 11/8/10 8:45 PM, Victor Duchovni at victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
wrote:
> 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 in
* Stan Hoeppner :
> > Ah OK. Didn't see that, honestly :(
>
> I think Ralf's body has been taken over by some alien entity Postfix
> nub. A coauthor of "The Book of Postfix" shouldn't be asking so many
> questions of late, but answering them. :)
In my defense: I'm having a bad cold!
> /me pe
Nick Edwards put forth on 11/9/2010 4:33 AM:
> "Make sure your PTR and A records match. For every IP address, there should
> be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain. If a host is
> multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP addresses have
> a corresponding PTR record
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:52:33PM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:44:55AM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:37:33PM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> >
> > > I get a match from postmap. Yet postfix does not block the message...
>
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 11/9/2010 6:18 AM, Lima Union wrote:
>>
>> hi all! as the subject says I have two noob questions:
>> (1) if I configure something like 'smtpd_milters =
>> inet:localhost:10025 inet:localhost:10034' does Postfix respect the
>> order? I mean, w
* Wietse Venema :
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > Which headers are deemed worthy? Why can't I add an X-anything: header?
>
> RTFM.
>
> BOUNCE(5)BOUNCE(5)
> ...
> TEMPLATE FILE FORMAT
> ...
>The following headers are supported:
Ah OK. D
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> Which headers are deemed worthy? Why can't I add an X-anything: header?
RTFM.
BOUNCE(5)BOUNCE(5)
...
TEMPLATE FILE FORMAT
...
The following headers are supported:
Nick Edwards:
> "Make sure your PTR and A records match. For every IP address, there should
> be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain. If a host is
> multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP addresses have
> a corresponding PTR record (not just the first one)."
>
>
"Make sure your PTR and A records match. For every IP address, there should
be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain. If a host is
multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP addresses have
a corresponding PTR record (not just the first one)."
Apparently, I'm led to be
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:50:04PM -0800, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> 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)
>
Today I tried to customize a bounce template with an additional
X-Foo: blah
header, but received the warning message from the bounce daemon:
warning: unknown "X-Foo" header label in failure template -- ignoring this
template
Which headers are deemed worthy? Why can't I add an X-anything: heade
Am 08.11.2010 17:27, schrieb Michael Sperber:
> 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.
>
but you can use saslauthd w
Aaron C. de Bruyn put forth on 11/8/2010 10:50 PM:
> 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)
This would be your
60 matches
Mail list logo
