Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/14/2011 12:22 PM:
>
> On 14/01/11 18:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
>>
>>> What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
>> I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
>> yesterday, in fac
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:07:45PM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
>> HP had changed their developer access program (with the
>> result that I could not use it anymore).
>
> I might be able to do some limited tests on HP-UX 11.11 (PA-RISC) and 11.23
> (Itanium) if needed. Let me know if i would
On 2011-01-04 11:05 AM, mouss wrote:
> - postfixadmin has a vacation.pl script. but I don't know its status now.
The latest version (2.3.2) is very good...
--
Best regards,
Charles
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > Stan Hoeppner:
> >> Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
> >>
> >> > postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
> >> > systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
> >>
> >> AIX?
> >
> > AIX and HP-UX a
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
> postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
> systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived TCP/UP stack,
and will
Le 14/01/2011 15:41, Markus Treinen a écrit :
> Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
>> You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
>> The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
>> through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
> Because I don't
Le 13/01/2011 22:06, Jonathan Tripathy a écrit :
>
> On 13/01/11 19:00, Jaques Cochet wrote:
>> After some reading:
>> - GFS and maildir work bad together
>> - NFS and maildir are not that good, NFS and postfix have some issues
>> but should be OK.
>>
> Where did you read that GFS worked badly wit
On 1/14/11 3:41 PM, Markus Treinen wrote:
Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
Because I don't want to have
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
>
> > postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
> > systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
>
> AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived TCP/UP stack,
and will probably work. I m
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:00:43PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
>
> > postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
> > systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
>
> AIX?
The above systems reflect the 3 supported fla
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
> postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
> systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
--
Stan
On 14/01/11 18:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
yesterday, in fact, in response to you.
You did indeed, thanks
Why are you runnin
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
> What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
yesterday, in fact, in response to you. Why are you running the same thread on
both mailing lists?
--
Stan
On 1/13/2011 7:26 AM, Ramprasad wrote:
Currently on my MX servers I use a custom rhsbl to reject domains
blacklisted by us. The DNS lookups are handled using a local rbldnsd
server.
I am trying to create a list of spammer email ids so that I can reject
spammers of neutral domains. But this can
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:28:16AM -0600, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
> What would one recommend as the simplest solution to implementing a
> per-user exception to mailbox_size_limit or alternative? Should one
> be using quotas on my /var/spool/mail ?
Use a real IMAP server backend, not /var/spool/ma
Hello,
What would one recommend as the simplest solution to implementing a
per-user exception to mailbox_size_limit or alternative? Should one
be using quotas on my /var/spool/mail ?
Thanks!
-Ev
Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
Because I don't want to have a REAL (as in UNIX) user for every
differ
On 14/01/11 14:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
> John Fawcett:
>
>> Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
>>
>> check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
>> and
>> postscreen_whitelist_networks.
>>
>> since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
>> whitelisted f
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:53:01PM +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > John Fawcett:
> >
> >> Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
> >> warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
> >> POSTSCREEN_BLA
John Fawcett:
> Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
>
> check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
> and
> postscreen_whitelist_networks.
>
> since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
> whitelisted for postscreen (in particular this whitelisting is use
Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
and
postscreen_whitelist_networks.
since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
whitelisted for postscreen (in particular this whitelisting is used to
avoid DNSBL checks on spe
On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
> John Fawcett:
>
>> Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
>> warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
>> POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
>>
> Please follow the instructions!!
>
> Wietse
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:59:38 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
> I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
> don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
> postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
> by the new postscreen_access_list.
At l
* John Fawcett :
> The code itself seems only to check if the values are set so if you have
> removed them completely (rather than setting to blank) you should see
> the warning because the default value of postscreen_whitelist_networks
> is not blank (unless $mynetworks is blank).
Which it is, i
On 14/01/11 13:02, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * John Fawcett :
>
>
>> I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
>> don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
>> postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
>> by the new postscreen_acc
John Fawcett:
> Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
> warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
> POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
Please follow the instructions!!
Wietse
* John Fawcett :
> I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
> don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
> postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
> by the new postscreen_access_list.
>
> Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscre
On 13/01/11 16:00, Wietse Venema wrote:
> There have been a few late changes to clean up the postscreen user
> interface. I left in some backwards compatibility support for early
> adopters. The backwards compatibility will be removed by the time
> of the Postfix 2.8 stable release.
>
>
Wietse
On 13/01/2011 22:06, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 13/01/11 19:00, Jaques Cochet wrote:
After some reading:
- GFS and maildir work bad together
- NFS and maildir are not that good, NFS and postfix have some issues
but should be OK.
Where did you read that GFS worked badly with maildir? I'd be i
29 matches
Mail list logo
