Wietse,
Would you have any plans to integrate in Postfix support for global AND
per user mailbox quotas supporting both Maildir and MBOX?
This is a frequently needed feature, as I am sure you are aware. Of
course, everything is always a matter of priorities and policies for the
Postfix proje
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:43:05PM +, Adam Hamer wrote:
> > Are you in fact forwarding email off-site or are you using lmtp(8) to
> > deliver email into a Dovecot IMAP store?
>
> Off-site. Any ideas for which way to go to make those aliases have
> the X-Original-To?
Aliasing via virtual(5) is
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:03:04PM +, Adam Hamer wrote:
>
> > I have an entry in the virtual_alias_maps for a few users to be
> > redirected to zendesk.com. zendesk requires a X-Original-To header set
> > for some stuff to work, but it isn't added in my postfix setup.
>
> > I have a basic
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 07:41:04AM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> > Scalability. One postscreen process can reject more zombies
> > than 1000+ smtpd processes.
>
> Impressive! I did not realize that it was that efficient.
This is easy, one smtpd(8) process handles one connection, on the other
hand, one
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:03:04PM +, Adam Hamer wrote:
> I have an entry in the virtual_alias_maps for a few users to be
> redirected to zendesk.com. zendesk requires a X-Original-To header set
> for some stuff to work, but it isn't added in my postfix setup.
> I have a basic postfix setup w
I have an entry in the virtual_alias_maps for a few users to be redirected to
zendesk.com. zendesk requires a X-Original-To header set for some stuff to
work, but it isn't added in my postfix setup.
I have a basic postfix setup with dovecot for virtual delivery, but from the
logs it appears do
On 2/17/2011 7:49 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
On 02/17/2011 02:47 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/17/2011 7:32 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Thanks Witsie,
Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or
web-based, like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/"
Maildir) mailbox, somehow ov
Am 17.02.2011 14:49, schrieb Frank Bonnet:
> If all users are virtuals how to enforce filesystem quota?
postfix is simply the wrong instance
quotas should do the imap/lmtp-server
as example in dbmail you have in the users table a field
for max mailbox size in bytes and the dbmail-lmtp
rejects m
On 02/17/2011 02:47 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/17/2011 7:32 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Thanks Witsie,
Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or
web-based, like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/"
Maildir) mailbox, somehow override the directive?
The postfix limit i
On 2/17/2011 7:32 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Thanks Witsie,
Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or
web-based, like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/"
Maildir) mailbox, somehow override the directive?
The postfix limit is for mailBOX, not mailDIR.
The postfix li
Nikolaos Milas:
> Thanks Witsie,
>
> Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or web-based,
> like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/" Maildir) mailbox,
> somehow override the directive?
As documented, virtual_mailbox_limit is a mailBOX limit not a mailDIR limit.
On 2/17/2011 8:32 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Thanks Witsie,
Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or
web-based, like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/" Maildir)
mailbox, somehow override the directive?
Or, what other, common tools could cause such an override?
Thanks Witsie,
Could the use of an IMAP client program (workstation-based or web-based,
like Squirrelmail) to access the incoming ("new/" Maildir) mailbox,
somehow override the directive?
Or, what other, common tools could cause such an override?
Our users are virtual, and don't have shell o
Nikolaos Milas:
> Hello,
>
> Although I'm using virtual_mailbox_limit (in main.cf), it seems it's not
> being observed. I set it to: 314572800 (300MB), but I see our users have
> sometimes larger mailboxes.
virtual_mailbox_limit (not the quota that I was confused with) limits
the size that POST
Nikolaos Milas:
> Hello,
>
> Although I'm using virtual_mailbox_limit (in main.cf), it seems it's not
> being observed. I set it to: 314572800 (300MB), but I see our users have
> sometimes larger mailboxes.
There is no virtual_mailbox_limit in Postfix. It is a third-party patch.
Wietse
Hello,
Although I'm using virtual_mailbox_limit (in main.cf), it seems it's not
being observed. I set it to: 314572800 (300MB), but I see our users have
sometimes larger mailboxes.
Should I do something more to enforce the limit?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Nick
Follows my config (postconf -n):
Ok, sorry. Posting in plain text now.
I'm using Cyberguard firewall & I heard it's stateful. It's not
managed by me but by the network/security guys.
So by permitting SMTP from those selected domains' SMTP
gateways to my postfix server is not sufficient even if I only
need to receive incoming m
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:10:58 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema articulated:
> Daniel Bromberg:
> > With an emphasis towards handling larger loads in the future, I am
> > trying to get a grip on the advantages provided by postscreen as
> > opposed to letting smtpd do the filtering "in situ."
>
> Scalabi
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:15:21 +0800
sunhux G articulated:
> Does my firewall need to permit SMTP outgoing or just incoming is
> sufficient?
Please don't top post. If you are unfamiliar with that term, Google for
it. While you are at it, could you please post in plain ASCII format.
There is no nee
Daniel Bromberg:
> With an emphasis towards handling larger loads in the future, I am
> trying to get a grip on the advantages provided by postscreen as opposed
> to letting smtpd do the filtering "in situ."
Scalability. One postscreen process can reject more zombies
than 1000+ smtpd processes.
With an emphasis towards handling larger loads in the future, I am
trying to get a grip on the advantages provided by postscreen as opposed
to letting smtpd do the filtering "in situ."
My skeptical side says that the same logic must be implemented to reject
a client regardless of the process c
You're right, there's one master postfix process locking it even though
"postfix status" reported postfix is down. Killed it & now postifx could
start & I'm beginning to get bounced mails notifications (shown below ***)
chroot is disabled & I've whitelisted the sending domains
Ran tcpdump nohup
22 matches
Mail list logo
