Am 13.12.2011 03:12, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 12/12/2011 2:17 PM, Andrew M wrote:
>> I'm running Dovecot 2.0.15 and Postfix 2.7.7 with postfix handing off to
>> Dovecot's LDA. I am hosting multiple virtual domains with multiple
>> users and everything is working. I would now like to create a p
On 12/12/2011 2:17 PM, Andrew M wrote:
> I'm running Dovecot 2.0.15 and Postfix 2.7.7 with postfix handing off to
> Dovecot's LDA. I am hosting multiple virtual domains with multiple
> users and everything is working. I would now like to create a permanent
> archive of all sent/received mail with
lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
> Hi,
>
> I have a working setup of postfix that sends all mail not for me
> to a relayhost via smtp. I want to use a fallback_relay to send
> mail via uucp. Ok, I know that does not work out of the box. So
> I set up another instance listening on port 10027 on 127.0.0.1.
Thanks !
Em 11/12/2011, às 17:46, Wietse Venema escreveu:
> Jose Renato Attab Braga:
>> Hi
>> I need use the address aaa+xyz@domain when I have the only the
>> address aaa@domain.
>> In my main.cf I have recipient_delimiter = +.
>> I use Mysql to emails adress and domains.
>> What do I need to co
Ruppert G. von Teutul:
> > > If I send a mail to someone at live.com it does not pass to the
> > > fallback_relay if relayhost is down. In theory this should only
> > > happen if my machine announces itself as MX for live.com. Correct?
> >
> > Oops, I wrote that code long enough that my memory i
> > If I send a mail to someone at live.com it does not pass to the
> > fallback_relay if relayhost is down. In theory this should only
> > happen if my machine announces itself as MX for live.com. Correct?
>
> Oops, I wrote that code long enough that my memory is incorrect.
>
> Try putting t
lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
>
> >
> > Why does Postfix believe that it is MX for those domains? If
> > it didn't, then it would use the smtp_fallback_relay.
>
> I have no clue!
>
> If I send a mail to someone at live.com it does not pass to the
> fallback_relay if relayhost is down. In theory this
Wietse Venema:
> Ruppert G. von Teutul:
> >
> > > > The machine we are talking about is MX for all the domains that
> > > > belong to me (=mydestination). And exactly the way relayhost is
> > > > sent mails to the world they should be sent to the fallback_relay
> > > > if that relayhost is down.
>
> Why does Postfix believe that it is MX for those domains? If
> it didn't, then it would use the smtp_fallback_relay.
I have no clue!
If I send a mail to someone at live.com it does not pass to the fallback_relay
if relayhost is down. In theory this should only happen if my machine
annou
Ruppert G. von Teutul:
>
> > > The machine we are talking about is MX for all the domains that
> > > belong to me (=mydestination). And exactly the way relayhost is
> > > sent mails to the world they should be sent to the fallback_relay
> > > if that relayhost is down.
> >
> > Why are you MX hos
> > The machine we are talking about is MX for all the domains that
> > belong to me (=mydestination). And exactly the way relayhost is
> > sent mails to the world they should be sent to the fallback_relay
> > if that relayhost is down.
>
> Why are you MX host for a domain, and then sending its
I'm running Dovecot 2.0.15 and Postfix 2.7.7 with postfix handing off to
Dovecot's LDA. I am hosting multiple virtual domains with multiple
users and everything is working. I would now like to create a permanent
archive of all sent/received mail with each virtual user's mail saved to
its own
Wietse Venema:
> > The machine we are talking about is MX for all the domains that
> > belong to me (=mydestination). And exactly the way relayhost is
> > sent mails to the world they should be sent to the fallback_relay
> > if that relayhost is down.
>
> Why are you MX host for a domain, and the
lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
> > lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
> > > The mails going to the uucp transport are going into the world.
> >
> > Wietse:
> > You are sending mail to some other host, and want Postfix to use
> > the smtp_fallback_feature when that host is down.
> >
> > Why does Postfix believe that
Wietse Venema:
> Pim Zandbergen:
> > On 12/12/2011 7:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Pim Zandbergen:
> > >> I can now reproduce the bouncing. Out of 22 tested recipients in
> > >> the relocated file, 7 consistently bounce, and 15 others consistently
> > >> reject.
> > > What do you mean by that:
> lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
> > The mails going to the uucp transport are going into the world.
>
> Wietse:
> You are sending mail to some other host, and want Postfix to use
> the smtp_fallback_feature when that host is down.
>
> Why does Postfix believe that it is MX host for the destination?
> So
Pim Zandbergen:
> On 12/12/2011 7:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Pim Zandbergen:
> >> I can now reproduce the bouncing. Out of 22 tested recipients in
> >> the relocated file, 7 consistently bounce, and 15 others consistently
> >> reject.
> > What do you mean by that: you talked to the Postfix SMT
On 12/12/2011 7:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Pim Zandbergen:
I can now reproduce the bouncing. Out of 22 tested recipients in
the relocated file, 7 consistently bounce, and 15 others consistently
reject.
What do you mean by that: you talked to the Postfix SMTP daemon
from one IP address, sent al
Pim Zandbergen:
> I can now reproduce the bouncing. Out of 22 tested recipients in
> the relocated file, 7 consistently bounce, and 15 others consistently
> reject.
What do you mean by that: you talked to the Postfix SMTP daemon
from one IP address, sent all 22 addresses in an RCPT TO command,
and
On 12/12/2011 4:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
The network-facing SMTP server is configured not to validate that
recipient, for example, due to explicit whitelisting in an access
map.
The access map contains whitelisted IP addresses only.
I can now reproduce the bouncing. Out of 22 tested recipie
Wietse:
>To prevent mailer loops between MX hosts and fall-back hosts, Postfix
>version 2.2 and later will not use the fallback relays for destinations
>that it is MX host for (assuming DNS lookup is turned on).
I made that change because mail would loop between the fallbax
and the M
The mails going to the uucp transport are going into the world. All other
mails are handled by the first postfix instance. This machine is not the MX
for the destinations the uucp transport / instance handles. It is my own MX,
but the mails for me are not handled in the uucp instance.
Are t
We currently run three load balanced outbound postfix servers and need to
integrate a policy service that can track messages per hour for SASL users.
We hope to have a service that can be cluster aware, or know how many
cumulative messages have been sent by all the servers in the cluster per
user p
lutz.niede...@gmx.net:
> Dec 12 16:38:38 mhost postfix/smtp[1378]: 4278AB425ED: to=,
> relay=none, delay=0.05, delays=0.03/0/0.02/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred
> (connect to mail.relay.de[192.10.64.2]: Connection refused)
>
> And then the message sits in the queue. It won't be delivered via my
Hi,
I have a working setup of postfix that sends all mail not for me to a relayhost
via smtp. I want to use a fallback_relay to send mail via uucp. Ok, I know
that does not work out of the box. So I set up another instance listening on
port 10027 on 127.0.0.1. This sends mail via uucp. I c
Ah, thank you, that led me into the exact right direction! =)
i changed the way dovecot checks, if the user exists, and now it works fine.
^_^;
just for curiosity, what exactly would i need to feed to the
virtual_maibox_maps or rather, what does it expect to get from whatever backend
put there?
* Wietse Venema :
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > Today we sent out some mails which were rejected, due to our use of
> > postscreen. From my queue:
> >
> > 3T26TK1xBDz1tSG 49541 Mon Dec 12 15:47:33
> > aktion-sauberehae...@charite.de
> > (host mail.klinikum-bayreuth.de[212.185.206.162] said: 450 4
Pim Zandbergen:
> /var/log/maillog-20111211:Dec 10 03:47:04 veldhoen postfix/smtpd[2891]:
> AC3E9664A: client=unknown[186.43.37.99]
> /var/log/maillog-20111211:Dec 10 03:47:05 veldhoen
> postfix/cleanup[2895]: AC3E9664A: message-id=<0uiljy-wdj5a3...@anbid.com.br>
> /var/log/maillog-20111211:Dec 1
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> Today we sent out some mails which were rejected, due to our use of
> postscreen. From my queue:
>
> 3T26TK1xBDz1tSG 49541 Mon Dec 12 15:47:33
> aktion-sauberehae...@charite.de
> (host mail.klinikum-bayreuth.de[212.185.206.162] said: 450 4.1.7
> : Sender address rejecte
Today we sent out some mails which were rejected, due to our use of
postscreen. From my queue:
3T26TK1xBDz1tSG 49541 Mon Dec 12 15:47:33 aktion-sauberehae...@charite.de
(host mail.klinikum-bayreuth.de[212.185.206.162] said: 450 4.1.7
: Sender address rejected: unverified
address: host mail2
I can't yet reproduce a bounce; i'm still figuring out under what
circumstances
a bounce will happen. Just being a local user, like I suggested in my
previous post
is not enough.
But here is an actual bounce sitting in my queue right now:
-Queue ID- --
On 12/12/2011 7:08 AM, Tomas Macek wrote:
> I'm using Postfix 2.8.5 built from source and amavisd-new 2.6.4 from
> Scientific Linux distribution. I have virtual domain 'virtdom.cz' and
> some subdomain 'subdomain.virtdom.cz'. The server receives the
> message and
> passes it to amavisd-new.
>
> As
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:11:26 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> James Seymour:
> > > The TCP stack sends an outbound ACK|RST because it received
> > > *something* on port 25. Your firewall should not have passed that.
> >
> > Should not have passed it *incoming*, do you mean?
>
> Indeed (assumi
nik600:
> Dear all
>
> i'm using the smtpd_client_message_rate_limit setting to limit the
> usage of my smtp service.
>
> I'd like to know if is possible to have 2 different values of this
> setting, and assign them only to some users.
>
> i've also seen that i can force the check with
> http://
James Seymour:
> > The TCP stack sends an outbound ACK|RST because it received
> > *something* on port 25. Your firewall should not have passed that.
>
> Should not have passed it *incoming*, do you mean?
Indeed (assuming that ipfilter actually tracks state in the exact
same way as the TCP stack,
Dear all
i'm using the smtpd_client_message_rate_limit setting to limit the
usage of my smtp service.
I'd like to know if is possible to have 2 different values of this
setting, and assign them only to some users.
i've also seen that i can force the check with
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.h
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:24:38 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip]
>
> There are two stateful engines: the TCP stack and ipfilter.
*nodding*
>
> With "keep state", ipfilter "remembers" the connection and lets
> packets pass, up to the point that ipfilter believes the connection
> no longer
James Seymour:
> > >-AR means the ACK and RST flags are set.
> > > My question is why is your firewall blocking outbound ACK|RST?
> >
> > I'm using basically "canned" rulesets in my ipfilter setup. That is
> > the default deny at the end of bge1's output filters.
> >
> >
I'm using Postfix 2.8.5 built from source and amavisd-new 2.6.4 from
Scientific Linux distribution. I have virtual domain 'virtdom.cz' and
some subdomain 'subdomain.virtdom.cz'. The server receives the message and
passes it to amavisd-new.
As you can see from the config, the re...@virtdom.cz shlo
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:57:12 -0500
Jim Seymour wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:03:59 -0500 (EST)
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > > bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.201.168,36545 PR
> > > > tcp len 20 40 -AR OUT
> > >
> > > Why are you blocking outbound TCP RST?
[snip]
>
> >
On 12/12/2011 6:49 AM, Pim Zandbergen wrote:
> I'm using postfix 2.7.5.
>
> Some relocated messages are bounced, some are rejected.
>
> It looks like this is the rule:
>
> Messages to recipients that appear to be local users (through
> winbind in my case) are bounced.
> Messages to recipients th
I'm using postfix 2.7.5.
Some relocated messages are bounced, some are rejected.
It looks like this is the rule:
Messages to recipients that appear to be local users (through winbind in
my case) are bounced.
Messages to recipients that do not appear to be local are rejected.
This may be rele
On 12/12/2011 5:38 AM, Pim Zandbergen wrote:
> I recently started using the relocated_maps feature and now am
> seeing some
> bounce messages to forged addresses in the queue because of that.
>
> It looks like this feature is bouncing rather than rejecting mail.
> How can I avoid this?
>
> Thanks
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> * Pim Zandbergen :
> > I recently started using the relocated_maps feature and now am seeing some
> > bounce messages to forged addresses in the queue because of that.
> >
> > It looks like this feature is bouncing rather than rejecting mail.
>
> It's not.
Eventually SOME
* Pim Zandbergen :
> I recently started using the relocated_maps feature and now am seeing some
> bounce messages to forged addresses in the queue because of that.
>
> It looks like this feature is bouncing rather than rejecting mail.
It's not.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteil
I recently started using the relocated_maps feature and now am seeing some
bounce messages to forged addresses in the queue because of that.
It looks like this feature is bouncing rather than rejecting mail.
How can I avoid this?
Thanks,
Pim
46 matches
Mail list logo
