* Wietse Venema :
> Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > Wietse et al.
> >
> > With the arrival of postscreen, but also before I find myself repeatedly
> > changing the defaults for the 'submission' service in master.cf. I believe
> > the
> > changes I apply are not rooted in my local mail policies, but of g
Hi All,
I am sorry for posting without subject.
Regards,
Ramesh
From: Ramesh
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2012 11:35 AM
Subject:
Hi All,
Is it possible to force sendmail on a remote host to relay all messages through
server running post
Hi All,
Is it possible to force sendmail on a remote host to relay all messages through
server running postfix.
currently email are sent through postini because domainX MX record points to
postini, I want sendmail on domainX to send directly to remote postfix server
and bypass postini.
I am
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:15:01PM -0700, Richard Troy wrote:
> "Public Internet MX hosts without certificates signed by a "reputable" CA
> must generate, and be prepared to present to most clients, a self-signed
> or private-CA signed certificate. The remote SMTP client will generally
> not be ab
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> Wietse et al.
>
> With the arrival of postscreen, but also before I find myself repeatedly
> changing the defaults for the 'submission' service in master.cf. I believe the
> changes I apply are not rooted in my local mail policies, but of general
> nature.
>
> Now that subm
Wietse et al.
With the arrival of postscreen, but also before I find myself repeatedly
changing the defaults for the 'submission' service in master.cf. I believe the
changes I apply are not rooted in my local mail policies, but of general
nature.
Now that submission has become more popular I'd li
That worked! Thank you very much!
From: Mailinglist
To: Scott Brown
Cc: Reindl Harald ; "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Installing postfix with mysql
CentOS Plus repo already has the postfix-SQL rpm. Go into
On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
>
>
> Noel,
>
> this is not a big deal to me, but here's where I became concerned about
> self-signed certs:
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
>>> The documentation found here:
>>>
>>> http://www
There is one correction, in-line.
> Kris Deugau:
> > We found that DNS-based round-robin strategies didn't actually balance
> > the load very well.
>
> This looks like the same problem that was found (and solved) with
> Postfix outbound connection caching; if a destination host became
> slow for
Kris Deugau:
> We found that DNS-based round-robin strategies didn't actually balance
> the load very well.
This looks like the same problem that was found (and solved) with
Postfix outbound connection caching; if a destination host became
slow for whatever reason, it became a fatal attractor for
Noel,
this is not a big deal to me, but here's where I became concerned about
self-signed certs:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
> > The documentation found here:
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html
> >
> > claims (intimates) that
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 3/12/2012 2:28 AM, Michael Maymann wrote:
Hi,
Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
earlier.
I dunno if there is a BCP covering smtp submission/relay server load
ba
On 3/12/2012 1:46 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
>> I'd be keen to know how I can, if I should, offload port 25; as I
>> > indicated I'm using port 25 because I didn't stumble over any other course
>> > of action. Please feel free to point me at what I _should_ be doing!
>> > -smile-
>
>...I'd still
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Richard Troy wrote:
...None of the reject_* things seemed to apply, but then, well, CLEARLY
at least one of them did... Sure would be nice if the log contained the
reason for rejection, however, I'm not complaining; this community has
provided me with GREAT software for a LO
On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
> The documentation found here:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html
>
> claims (intimates) that it's not possible to run a site on a self-signed
> certificate, however, there's ZERO budget for a signed certificate, so
> unless I can get one for te
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> You're supposed to share the result, not say "looks correct". As
> the reporter of a problem, you are in the worst position to say
> that things are correct, because if you were able to see your
> mistake, then you would not be posting on this mailin
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Larry Stone wrote:
>
> > It's not clear if you're trying to do this on port 25 or port 587
> > (submission).
>
> I'd be keen to know how I can, if I should, offload port 25; as I
> indicated I'm using port 25 because I didn't stumble over any other course
> of action. Pleas
Richard Troy:
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Output from the "postconf -n" command is preferred here. If this
> > output differs from what you expect, then that it a possible
> > contributor to the problem.
>
> Yes, already checked: high fidelity, no discrepancies.
You're s
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Larry Stone wrote:
>
> I haven't seen any followups with the request postconf -n output but:
>
Um, nobody asked for it; Wietse only said it was preferred over sharing
the values individually. -smile- However, I'll take your statement as an
implicit request - it's below.
> It
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Output from the "postconf -n" command is preferred here. If this
> output differs from what you expect, then that it a possible
> contributor to the problem.
Yes, already checked: high fidelity, no discrepancies.
> TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.p
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Richard Troy wrote:
My problem statement is simply, "it should be working", but doesn't, and I
don't get any announcement of "auth" when testing connections to Postfix
as per directions here:
http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_test
I haven't seen any followu
Am 12.03.2012 18:44, schrieb Richard Troy:
>> with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in "dovecot.conf" is
>
> Using 1.2.8
this is really old
>> the mode/owner/group
> No, not missed, however:
>
>> unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
>
> My code reads:
> path = /var/spool/postfix/privat
Herr Harald,
> please describe you problem a little shorter
Ja, klein.
> with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in "dovecot.conf" is
Using 1.2.8.
> the mode/owner/group
No, not missed, however:
> unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
My code reads:
path = /var/spool/postfix/private/au
Richard Troy:
> My problem statement is simply, "it should be working", but doesn't, and I
> don't get any announcement of "auth" when testing connections to Postfix
> as per directions here:
...
> smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
> smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth
> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> broken_sa
Am 12.03.2012 18:14, schrieb Richard Troy:
please describe you problem a little shorter
with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in "dovecot.conf" is
working like a charme, if i should guess you missed
the mode/owner/group
# configure backend for postfix sasl-auth
service auth {
unix_listener /var/s
Hello.
I've setup a null client (from the postfix doc) to use a sender rewrite with
sender_canonical_maps to send mail from serv...@foo.bar through a mailgateway.
And before finishing of the mailgateway config, I got a bounce back. So how can
I fix the null client to accept but drop all bounce
Hello Folks,
I've been the admin of a site that uses Postfix with Dovecot on RedHat
since, oh, gosh, maybe 1996? It's been a long time. I've never built it
from source, though, just used the rpms (and I wonder if maybe that's my
problem now). It just works, is reliable, and lets me be a very-part
On 3/12/2012 11:10 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to
> resolve this.
>
> One of my clients just switched from webroot's EMail SaaS (antispam
> service) to Postini, and they do use postini (as they did webroot)
> for outbound relaying/filterin
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:10:30PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to resolve this.
>
> I get the following error in the logs ( is a valid
> user on our system):
>
> Mar 12 02:48:29 myhost postfix-25/smtpd[25932]: C0F52760CFF:
> client=ex
I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to resolve this.
One of my clients just switched from webroot's EMail SaaS (antispam
service) to Postini, and they do use postini (as they did webroot) for
outbound relaying/filtering.
This change has broken mail forwarding via aliase
On 2012-03-12 10:53 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Well... I just opened it in notepad++ to check, and I did indeed see
CRLF at the end of every line (and for the blank lines)... so, if you
didn't see them in the one that was attached, I guess something stripped
them out?
Out of curiosity, I just s
On 2012-03-12 9:44 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Charles Marcus:
I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
/etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing "e mail system?" end marker
I have attached my /etc/postfix/bounce.cf f
Charles Marcus:
> Hi all,
>
> I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
>
> Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
> /etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing "e mail system?" end marker
>
> I have attached my /etc/postfix/bounce.cf file... can anyone see
Hi All Postfix Users,
I've one question with one advanced Postfix configuration.
My architecture:
2 Frontal Server MX01 (Prio 10) and MX02 (Prio 20) with Postfix and Dovecot.
1 Backend Server FILTERGW with Postfix and SpamAssassin and Amavis.
When one mail come to MX01, I check with MySQL if the
we are turks and we hate sex word :P
thank you all.
selcuk.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Larry Stone wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Selcuk Yazar wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have a rule on header checks file like this;
> >
> > /^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT "Bad Header 92"
>
On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Selcuk Yazar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a rule on header checks file like this;
>
> /^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT "Bad Header 92"
>
> but last week our staff sen an email an it's subject is
>
> Subject: =?utf-8?B?QsSwWSBNRVNMRUsgRVTEsMSexLAgSEFGVEEgNQ==
>
>
Hi all,
I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
/etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing "e mail system?" end marker
I have attached my /etc/postfix/bounce.cf file... can anyone see a
problem with it?
My syste
On 3/12/2012 2:28 AM, Michael Maymann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
> practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
> earlier.
I dunno if there is a BCP covering smtp submission/relay server load
balancing/fail ov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2012 09:26 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Improve the header checks e.g. by requiring a word boundary-
Although I agree, as encoded headers are becoming common place
nowadays, decoding would be a nice enhancement to the header checking
code.
Q
* Selcuk Yazar :
> Hi,
>
> We have a rule on header checks file like this;
>
> /^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT "Bad Header 92"
>
> but last week our staff sen an email an it's subject is
>
> Subject: =?utf-8?B?QsSwWSBNRVNMRUsgRVTEsMSexLAgSEFGVEEgNQ==
>
> thats why this mail rejected ? be
Hi,
Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
earlier.
If there isn't a nice howto already, I guess I can figure this out myself -
bonding is easy, if this is the prefered solution for a postfix in
41 matches
Mail list logo
