Hi,
I just had a look at the release notes for the Postfix 2.8 release
candidate and noticed that "postscreen" isn't described as a completely
new feature. It wasn't however included in a previous stable release.
Cheers
David
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:34:38AM +0530, ramesh srinivas wrote:
> Sorry Noel, I will figure out the DNS issue.
That's good, but you also said
> when i send mail to x...@example.com from yahoo maillog in
> mailhub shows 554 5.7.1 (Relay access denied)
You have to take care of that problem first
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:12:54PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > alpha smoothing should do the trick, in this case we can start with
> >
> > t_0 = 0,
> >
> > and set
> >
> > t_{n+1} = 0.95*t_{n} + 0.05*delta
>
> There are many ways to arrive at a moving average. Where do these
> mag
Sorry Noel, I will figure out the DNS issue.
Thanks and Regards,
Ramesh
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Noel Jones wrote:
From: Noel Jones
Subject: Re: MX Priority
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 7:30 PM
On 1/16/2011 11:08 PM, ramesh srinivas wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> I have ch
On 1/18/2011 10:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
alpha smoothing should do the trick, in this case we can start with
t_0 = 0,
and set
t_{n+1} = 0.95*t_{n} + 0.05*delta
There are many ways to arrive at a moving average. Where do these
magic numbers come from?
Wietse
h
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:01:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Perhaps postscreen should warn when the *average* delay goes over
> > some threshold. That would reduce the number of false alarms.
> > Maybe I can slip this in before the stable release.
>
> alpha smoothing s
On 1/18/2011 8:37 AM, Hari Hendaryanto wrote:
Hari Hendaryanto:
If this happens often then it will impact Postfix performance, but
only if your server handles many connections (with 100 ms to access
the database, postscreen can handle up to 10 connections per second).
i reduced default_process_
Hari Hendaryanto:
yes, i think the disk I/O was to busy to handle postfix and view
http services. is the "delayed" psc_cache_update doing any harm?if
not, i can live with that (or at least i should figure out how to
tune the disk I/O latency)
If this happens often then it will impact Postfix pe
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:01:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Perhaps postscreen should warn when the *average* delay goes over
> some threshold. That would reduce the number of false alarms.
> Maybe I can slip this in before the stable release.
alpha smoothing should do the trick, in this cas
Wietse:
> I see the warning once a day on my lightly-loaded server with a
> single 15kRPM disk under an ancient CPU; the timing suggests that
> this happens while some cron job is doing house cleaning.
Hari Hendaryanto:
> yes, i think the disk I/O was to busy to handle postfix and view
> http serv
On 1/17/2011 9:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
If this happens often, this means that postscreen cannot handle
more than 10 SMTP connections per second, or that your system clock
is jumping (as in: running inside a VM).
i'm running postfix on native linux OS (bare-metal)
I see the warning once a d
On 1/17/11 8:27 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Buzai Andras :
Actually he is right.
"www" is just a sub-domain.
The common practice (although it is not mandatory) is to have "www"
setup as a CNAME for "domain.tld".
Personally I think it would be nice to have "postfix.org" and
"www.pos
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
>> If you have time, can you try:
>>
>> stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
>> stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
>>
>> Thanks,
>
> In case that does not help, declaring the hiwat and lowat variables
> as double
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> If you have time, can you try:
> >>
> >> stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
> >> stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >
> > In case that does not help, declaring the hiwat and lowat variables
> > as double instead of
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well this is the code:
> >> >
> >> > psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
pch0317:
> Hi,
> I use postfix with virtual mailbox domain and ldap
> (http://www.linuxmail.info/postfix-dovecot-ldap-centos-5/).
>
> When I use
> result_format = %s/Inbox
> postfix doesn't create Inbox file because directory %s isn't create
> automatically.
> When I manually add directory %s, i
Wietse Venema:
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > Zitat von Wietse Venema :
> >
> > > Victor Duchovni:
> > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Well this is the code:
> > >> >
> > >> > psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> > >> >
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well this is the code:
> >> >
> >> > psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> >> > psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9
Hi,
I use postfix with virtual mailbox domain and ldap
(http://www.linuxmail.info/postfix-dovecot-ldap-centos-5/).
When I use
result_format = %s/Inbox
postfix doesn't create Inbox file because directory %s isn't create
automatically.
When I manually add directory %s, inbox file is created dur
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Well this is the code:
>
> psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Is the compiler first conv
On 16 Jan 2011, at 23:49, Неворотин Вадим wrote:
> It's a... nonsense! When somebody ask "tell me an address of website",
> nobody and never start their answers with W...W...W
I do. If you try to go to http://spamhaus.org you get a "not found" error
because our website is http://www.sp
Jaques Cochet put forth on 1/17/2011 12:18 AM:
> If postfix alone is running on the server, let's say as a mail router
> or backend delivey system, would postfix processes make use of all
> cores? would I be left with cores doing nothing even If I have an
> important number of emails to process?
I
Le 17/01/2011 20:01, Noel Jones a écrit :
> On 1/17/2011 12:41 PM, Buzai Andras wrote:
>> Actually he is right.
>> "www" is just a sub-domain.
>> The common practice (although it is not mandatory) is to have "www"
>> setup as a CNAME for "domain.tld".
>> Personally I think it would be nice to have
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Well this is the code:
> >
> > psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> > psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
>
> Is the compiler first converting 0.7 to
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Well this is the code:
>
> psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
> psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Is the compiler first converting 0.7 to an integer and *then* doing
the
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> > Can you please try the two #define statements at the top of
> >> > postscreen.h
> >> >
> >> > #define psc_check_queue_length_hiwat psc_hiwat
> >> > #define psc_check_queue_length_lowat psc_lowat
> >> >
> >> > Then recompile.
> >>
> >> Sorry, no. Both values stay
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
>> > This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
>> >
>> > Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
>> > postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
Zitat von Buzai Andras :
Actually he is right.
"www" is just a sub-domain.
The common practice (although it is not mandatory) is to have "www"
setup as a CNAME for "domain.tld".
Personally I think it would be nice to have "postfix.org" and
"www.postfix.org" point to the same location.
Actually
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:08:59AM -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
>
> > You are SO impolite.
> >
> > I am kind enough to take the time to notify
> > you a bug, and you are replying that I am incimpetente.
>
> There is no bug. Your Postfix binaries are from different versions
> of
On 1/17/2011 12:41 PM, Buzai Andras wrote:
Actually he is right.
"www" is just a sub-domain.
The common practice (although it is not mandatory) is to have "www"
setup as a CNAME for "domain.tld".
Personally I think it would be nice to have "postfix.org" and
"www.postfix.org" point to the same loc
Off topic:
I agree with Joan.
Mr. Wietse's answer was very rude.
I used to have a great respect for Mr. Wietse, but after I saw that
reply (and a few others) it all changed.
The point of having a public mailing list (among others) is to help
others no matter if they are novice or not.
To quote Mr.
Actually he is right.
"www" is just a sub-domain.
The common practice (although it is not mandatory) is to have "www"
setup as a CNAME for "domain.tld".
Personally I think it would be nice to have "postfix.org" and
"www.postfix.org" point to the same location.
Best regards,
Buzai
On Mon, Jan 17,
On 2011-01-13 8:05 AM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> While Postfix works well with NFS, Dovecot has some serious issues with
> it (according to their wiki and mailing list).
Only under specific circumstances... and it is an NFS issue, not dovecot...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:08:59AM -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
> You are SO impolite.
>
> I am kind enough to take the time to notify
> you a bug, and you are replying that I am incimpetente.
There is no bug. Your Postfix binaries are from different versions
of Postfix. It is possible that your
On 1/17/11 7:18 AM, Jaques Cochet wrote:
If postfix alone is running on the server, let's say as a mail router
or backend delivey system, would postfix processes make use of all
cores?
That's a loaded question, since "postfix" is not a process that consumes
CPU.
In one (1) postfix instance,
On 1/16/11 6:33 PM, James wrote:
I set message_size_limit = 0 in main.conf and postfix started ok but I
wasn't getting mail so I read the docs.
It said mailbox_size_limit must be larger than message_size_limit so I
set it to It said
mailbox_size_limit = 0 and I got mail. :-)
The goal was to be
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> > This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
> >> >
> >> > Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
> >> > postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
> >> >
> >> > hi
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
>
> Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
> postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
>
> hiwat=90 means enter stress mode with 90 or more connectio
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second
whitelisted):
> >>
> >>
> >> Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
> >> 2.8.
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
> >
> > Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
> > postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
> >
> > hiwat=90 means enter stress mode with 90 or more connections
> > lowat=70
Wietse Venema:
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > Zitat von Wietse Venema :
> >
> > > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > >> With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second
> > >> whitelisted):
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
> > >> 2.8.0-RC1,
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
>> With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second
whitelisted):
>>
>>
>> Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon starte
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
> >>
> >>
> >> Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
> >> 2
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
2.8.0-RC1, configuration /etc/postfix
Jan 17 16:28:33 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[28903]: CONNECT from
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
>
>
> Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
> 2.8.0-RC1, configuration /etc/postfix
> Jan 17 16:28:33 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[28903]: CONNECT from
> [10.1.70.1]:
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
>> fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
>> Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
>> Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
>> /usr/libexec/postfix/
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>
> > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >> fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
> >> Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
> >> Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
> >> /usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 1
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:08:59 -0500
Joan Moreau articulated:
> You are SO impolite.
>
> I am kind enough to take the time to notify
> you a bug, and you are replying that I am incimpetente.
>
> Your tone was
> exactly the same with my question on MYSQL integration.
>
> Would you
> please avo
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 16003 exit status 1
Looks like the same probl
Joan Moreau:
>
>
> You are SO impolite.
>
> I am kind enough to take the time to notify
> you a bug, and you are replying that I am incimpetente.
Execute the following command:
$ strings -a -f /usr/libexec/postfix/* | grep mail_version=
Then report the results.
Wietse
> Your ton
You are SO impolite.
I am kind enough to take the time to notify
you a bug, and you are replying that I am incimpetente.
Your tone was
exactly the same with my question on MYSQL integration.
Would you
please avoid talking to me and let polite and kind people reply ot my
email ?
On Mon,
Hari Hendaryanto:
> hi,
>
> i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning
>
> Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning:
> psc_cache_update: /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db update took 103 ms
If this happens often, this means that postscreen cannot handle
more than 1
On 1/16/2011 11:08 PM, ramesh srinivas wrote:
Hi Noel,
I have changed MX priority to high for mailhub, it has taken 5
hours to update, but when i checked with host -t mx
example.com from mailhub.example.com still it shows mailhub as
low priority, from external server it shows mailhub as high
pri
On 1/16/2011 10:50 PM, Goutam Baul wrote:
Dear List,
We are planning to run a mailing system using postfix, courier
imap,maildrop
and openldap. There will be two mail servers each server
catering to a
defined set of users. Thus we would need to deliver the mails
depending on
the location of t
Joan Moreau:
> Yes, well, that is what I do.
>
> THe bug does not disappear anyway
> ... How to fix that ?
The problem is clear: you are still running the Postfix 2.7
queue manager daemon, after you replaced the smtp client etc.
programs with those from Postfix 2.8.
The reason for this is one
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
> Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
> Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
> /usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 16003 exit status 1
Looks like the same problem as Solaris.
Add:
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
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
At 04:03 AM 1/17/2011, you wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I'd like to limit the outgoing E-mails. We have a lot of "newsletter"
>users who like to send E-mail via php... so the 80% of the mail comes
>from: 127.0.0.1. But I'd like to limit them to 20 mails / 5 minutes.
>
>How can I set up the rate control, t
Am 17.01.2011 10:38, schrieb roby65:
Hi guys,
i'm using goldfish as autoresponder for now, but here comes the problem:
i looked at the source and i understood it, but i need that when an email
arrives, an autorespond is sent also if the email is read from the receiver
(the goldfish script check
Hi guys,
i'm using goldfish as autoresponder for now, but here comes the problem:
i looked at the source and i understood it, but i need that when an email
arrives, an autorespond is sent also if the email is read from the receiver
(the goldfish script checks the "new" folder for emails, but the
60 matches
Mail list logo
