Thanks for your input guys. As I suspected I need to dig a bit deeper. Here is
the relevant portion of my mail log using Windows Live Mail to send:
[...snip]
Jan 31 07:27:51 vps03 postfix/smtpd[3923]: connect from unknown[IP_REMOVED]
Jan 31 07:27:51 vps03 postfix/smtpd[3923]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCP
I was reading about "Defferred queue full of dictionary attack bounces" which I
think might be an issue here.
So i performed a qshape analysis and I got this:
command: qshape deferred | head
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
On 1/30/2012 10:30 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 6:46 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
>> Thank you Noel. Our server sends out copies of email confirmations
>> to our clients and if the client decides to make a large order they
>> end up pushing our volume up and we end up getting blocked by their
On 1/30/2012 6:46 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
> Thank you Noel. Our server sends out copies of email confirmations
> to our clients and if the client decides to make a large order they
> end up pushing our volume up and we end up getting blocked by their
> mail server. I seem to be getting connectio
On 1/30/2012 9:32 PM, Jim Seymour wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:30:33 +
> James Day wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> ... trying the same account details from Windows Live
>> Mail throws up a:
>>
>> "554 Relay Access denied" error message.
> [snip]
>
> IIRC, "Relay access denied" is a symptom of a non-
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:30:33 +
James Day wrote:
[snip]
> ... trying the same account details from Windows Live
> Mail throws up a:
>
> "554 Relay Access denied" error message.
[snip]
IIRC, "Relay access denied" is a symptom of a non-SSL attempted
connection/login when "disable_plaintext_aut
Hi it seems to be a layer 3 issue, according to the description I will check
any firewall or router at the perimeters end.
Have you checked that? Have you tried tcpdump to check if those packets are
leaving the box?
Thats just a thought, I hope it helps.
Regards.
Saludos
Ing. Alfonso Aleja
Thank you Noel. Our server sends out copies of email confirmations to our
clients and if the client decides to make a large order they end up pushing our
volume up and we end up getting blocked by their mail server. I seem to be
getting connection timed out on a lot of the hosts. I even try to t
I'll keep this short for now in case it's a known problem but if more logs are
required let me know.
I've configured postfix to allow SASL authenticated users (dovecot sasl) to
relay.
I've tested this and confirmed it works from within Outlook 2007 and 2010.
However trying the same account det
Mark Alan:
> > > Would the following be an acceptable way to do it?
> > > postconf -e 'postscreen_access_list = reject'
> > > postconf -e 'soft_bounce = yes'
> >
> > Only if this is documented. The soft_bounce parameter is listed on
> > the postscreen(8) manpage, this is perhaps a sufficient p
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:50:52 +, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26:42PM +, Mark Alan wrote:
>
> > > > Is there any other way to make the postscreen/postfix
> > > > combination temporarily defer all incoming emails with '450
> > > > 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable'
On 1/30/2012 5:07 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My relay servers have mail being received but unable to send. When I
> type "mailq" I see: Delivery temporarily suspended….Connection timed
> out. I also noticed this line:
>
> Tarpitting active for [1.2.3.4)
>
> I restarted postfix, flu
Hi All,
My relay servers have mail being received but unable to send. When I type
"mailq" I see: Delivery temporarily suspended….Connection timed out. I also
noticed this line:
Tarpitting active for [1.2.3.4)
I restarted postfix, flushed mailq and still everything is stuck. Now the mail
is bu
I wrote:
I could of course background each call to
sendmail.postfix but then I'd have to do my own concurrency management
to throttle the number of simultaneous processes I had running that, and
that seems to me to be exactly what Postfix should be doing for me.
I tried this approach, and it di
Hello. I'm very new to Postfix configuration; I switched from Sendmail
because I want to send mail through the Amazon Simple Email Service and
Postfix has concurrency options that were easier to understand.
However, they're not doing what I want and the mail is going too slow.
Sending mail v
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Sabahattin Gucukoglu :
>
> > Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender
> > come to the postmaster?
>
Here's what happens. First, mail to the null address goes to
MAILER-DAEMON by default:
empty_address_recipient (default: MAILER-DAEMON)
Kind of thinking out loud here - not sure anything can/should be done.
Recipient address verification means - to me - that the recipient
address has been pre-qualified by our server. So when a user presses
"send" on their client, and the message disappears into the mysterious
ether - I'm reas
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26:42PM +, Mark Alan wrote:
> > > Is there any other way to make the postscreen/postfix combination
> > > temporarily defer all incoming emails with '450 4.3.2 Service
> > > currently unavailable' (in order to give us some time to migrate
> > > the postfix server to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:09:21 +, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > Is there any other way to make the postscreen/postfix combination
> > temporarily defer all incoming emails with '450 4.3.2 Service
> > currently unavailable' (in order to give us some time to migrate
> > the postfix server to some ot
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:03:39PM +, Mark Alan wrote:
> Regarding the config option:
> postscreen_access_list = static:retry
Where is "retry" documented as a valid access list keyword?
> 3) the similar syntax of 'transport_maps = static:retry'
The transport table is not access(5) table,
Hello,
Regarding the config option:
postscreen_access_list = static:retry
And considering that:
1) "Permanent white/blacklist for remote SMTP client
IP addresses. postscreen(8) searches this list immediately after a
remote SMTP client connects."
2) static is a valid lookup table type
3) t
* Sabahattin Gucukoglu :
> Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender come
> to the postmaster?
Show logs for this please.
Show postconf -n output
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjam
> > Why are you storing maildirs in the queue directory?
>
> I think it is a legacy thing from a very old how-to. Note it's for
> virtual accounts, so no /home directories. What's the more standard
> place to put them if I may ask?
Anywhere else, like /var/spool/mail (just an idea)
> Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:00:08PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
> > Otherwise, you're trying to solve some problem that's motivating
> > this question, so state that instead.
>
> No, no problem. Only attempting to future-proof things. I anticipate
> mail volume to grow in the future, and as I have ac
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:47:39PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
>> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
>
> The answer depends on your real goals.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:47:39PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
The answer depends on your real goals. Mounting the spool on an
SSD is only your real goal if you're are
On 30 January 2012 12:49, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
>> wrote:
>> > * Ori Bani :
>> >> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the
>> >> postfix queue directories on a faster me
Ok, I think for me the easiest way will be to simply port it out to a
milter to do the job and simply discard the message. I'm very good a
milter code, so that will probably allow me to do all sorts of special
stuff on top of what I would eventually get out of postfix configuration
magic, given th
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
> > * Ori Bani :
> >> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the
> >> postfix queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in
> >> this case).
> >>
> >> In my
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:21:36 -0600
Noel Jones wrote:
[snip]
>
> If the client attempts SASL, postfix will log either success or
> failure. Looks as if the client didn't even try.
Exactly. And that should've been my clue that the mechanism(s) offered
weren't to the client's liking.
Wietse pic
On 1/30/2012 9:10 AM, Eric Chandler wrote:
> My hope is that I could create a separate maildir for each recipient,
> no-matter if the recipient has a standard corporate email address, or
Creating wildcard users is more complicated.
You can easily wildcard virtual domains with
virtual_mailbox_doma
On 1/30/2012 8:16 AM, James Seymour wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> at least show some parts of the logfile
>
> Very well. Not much to see...
>
> Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
> c-68-43-238-106.hsd1.mi.comcas
>The above simple example catches *EVERYTHING* and is suitable to be
used in a lab or test setting. This is consistent with the initial
request as I understand it.
>If the request was incomplete, it should be clarified.
Yes, I want to catch everything. The dev/qa environments use different
MTAs
Am 30.01.2012 15:16, schrieb James Seymour:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> at least show some parts of the logfile
>
> Very well. Not much to see...
>
> Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
> c-68-43-238-106.hsd1.mi.com
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:08:55 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip]
>
> Have you compared the SMTP server EHLO replies (with openssl
> s_client)?
No. That'd be difficult, tho not impossible, to do at this point, as
the old server is up in storage.
But this is certainly an Outlook 2003 -speci
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> at least show some parts of the logfile
Very well. Not much to see...
Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
c-68-43-238-106.hsd1.mi.comcast.net[68.43.238.106] Jan 29 20:42:27 mail
postfix/smtps/smtpd[
James Seymour:
> Hi All,
>
> Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
> I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
> send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
Have you compared the SMTP server EHLO replies (with openssl s
On 1/30/2012 7:47 AM, James Seymour wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
> I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
> send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
>
> I do have "broken_sasl_auth_cl
Am 30.01.2012 14:47, schrieb James Seymour:
> Hi All,
>
> Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
> I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
> send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
>
> I do have "broken_sasl_auth
Hi All,
Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
I do have "broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes". Postfix version is 2.7.0,
running on an Ub
Sabahattin Gucukoglu:
> Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender come
> to the postmaster?
>
> I vote bug. :-)
>
> Any workarounds to prevent this in the meantime?
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://
On 1/30/2012 1:47 AM, Ori Bani wrote:
> Does that make any sense? Is there adverse risk putting the queue
> directories on non-RAID fast media?
SSDs, both MLC and SLC, do fail, just not the same failure modes as
SRDs. Thus you need to use a mirrored pair for the Postfix spool, just
as you'd do
Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender come
to the postmaster?
I vote bug. :-)
Any workarounds to prevent this in the meantime?
Cheers,
Sabahattin
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Ori Bani :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
>> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
>>
>> In my case, I have virtual maildirs under /var/spool/postfix and those
* Ori Bani :
> Hello,
>
> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
>
> In my case, I have virtual maildirs under /var/spool/postfix and those
> would be relocated to elsewhere (onto slower normal media) bec
45 matches
Mail list logo
