* Kirill Bychkov :
> Hi all,
>
> I need create server with 5 IP addresses (interfaces) and postfix(es). The
> role of this server is relay.
> If message delivered into my mail server on one ip address, for example,
> 172.16.35.35, so this message should be sent from same ip: 172.16.35.35.
> In oth
Hi all,
I need create server with 5 IP addresses (interfaces) and postfix(es). The
role of this server is relay.
If message delivered into my mail server on one ip address, for example,
172.16.35.35, so this message should be sent from same ip: 172.16.35.35.
In other words, on which interface the
Nikolaos Milas:
> In: DATA
> Out: 354 End data with .
> Out: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error
>
> Session aborted, reason: lost connection
>
> For other details, see the local mail logfile
Look at the last line!
Wietse
are you using postscreen by any chance?
it's seems like the network layer between the client and the server is fine.
can you see anything on the maillog when the session was started?
is this happening on every session or just part of them?
as i remember a 4XX errors aborted transmissions will b
Hi,
Tonight we are getting frequent (at times, otherwise occasional) errors
coming in to the postmaster, like the following (see below).
Note: the session is from our mail gateway machine to the final
(internal) destination one (Postfix).
I would say that these errors (which we have not see
On May 2, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> Sorry for being an arse, but I fail to see why you don't simply follow
> up on my advise (and report back) over at [sdlu] about this
I did what you suggested (turning on the verbose auth logging in Dovecot)
and replied about it. Thanked you prof
On 02-05-12 22:45, ghe wrote:
>
> I've asked on several lists, googled, and read books. I can't figure out
> what's going on. I thought the lack of rhost= indicated one of my monit
> monitors. So I turned them all off, and the entries came right in.
>
Sorry for being an arse, but I fail to see
On 5/2/12 2:57 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:
If this is an Ubuntu system, it could be a problem with the dovecot PAM
authentication configuration.
Well, it's Debian -- that's pretty close :-)
I saw this problem a couple of years ago,
fixed it (but don't remember how), but then an update to my ser
Glenn,
May 2 14:02:15 server dovecot-auth: pam_unix(dovecot:auth):
authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=dovecot ruser=be rhost=
If this is an Ubuntu system, it could be a problem with the dovecot PAM
authentication configuration. I saw this problem a couple of years ago,
fixed i
I've been having an interesting (to me) problem. I'm getting auth.log
entries like this:
May 2 14:02:15 server dovecot-auth: pam_unix(dovecot:auth): authentication
failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=dovecot ruser=be rhost=
every 10 minutes. Note the empty rhost= data. 'be' was a username --
On 05/02/2012 04:28 PM, Peter Berghold wrote:
I remember reading in either the postfix book or on a website
somewhere a method that would allow postfix to put mail from multiple
domains into separate directories looking like:
/var
`-- mailboxes
|-- domaina.tld
| |-- user1
| |--
On 02-05-12 19:53, kar...@mailcan.com wrote:
>
> My recently installed Postfix works as I'd hoped; I moved it into full
> production as our corporate server yesterday.
>
> There's one annoyance, and I admit that's all it is, that I'd like to
> get rid of. *Noisy* pests. They irritate me.
>
> I
On 5/2/2012 12:53 PM, kar...@mailcan.com wrote:
>
> My recently installed Postfix works as I'd hoped; I moved it into full
> production as our corporate server yesterday.
>
> There's one annoyance, and I admit that's all it is, that I'd like to
> get rid of. *Noisy* pests. They irritate me.
>
My recently installed Postfix works as I'd hoped; I moved it into full
production as our corporate server yesterday.
There's one annoyance, and I admit that's all it is, that I'd like to
get rid of. *Noisy* pests. They irritate me.
I'm interested in what others do in similar circumstance.
My
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0200, Marko Weber wrote:
> is there any benefit of multiple check_helo_access?
Maybe. What are you trying to do?
HELO checks are very effective against spam zombies, but not very
useful otherwise.
> i see in some configs check_helo_access is in "smtpd_helo-
>
On 5/2/2012 8:28 AM, Peter Berghold wrote:
> I remember reading in either the postfix book or on a website
> somewhere a method that would allow postfix to put mail from
> multiple domains into separate directories looking like:
> /var
read up on virtual mailbox domains. Start here:
http://www.po
Mohamed Tahoon:
> relay_transport = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
Specify a mail delivery transport (local, smtp, etc.), not a lookup table.
Wietse
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport
relay_transport (default: relay)
The default mail delivery transport and next-hop des
HI,
i am configuring my postfix daemon to forward mails to two different
destinations "mail servers" (example1.com, example2.com)
while the folllowing warning messages appears every minute:
# tail -10 mail.warn
Apr 23 21:43:53 myservername postfix/qmgr[27933]: warning: connect to transport
hash
Marko Weber:
> when do i have to use "postfix upgrade-configuration"?
After installing/upgrading a Postfix release.
Use "postfix reload" when YOU edit main/master.cf.
Wietse
Hello List,
is an "postfix reload" performing an "postfix upgrade-configuration" ?
Or do i have to execute "postfix upgrade-configuration" seperately?
when do i have to use "postfix upgrade-configuration"?
normal edits in the main.cf / master.cf i can activate with postfix
reload, or?
tha
On 02/05/2012 16:28, Peter Berghold wrote:
I remember reading in either the postfix book or on a website somewhere
a method that would allow postfix to put mail from multiple domains into
separate directories looking like:
/var
`-- mailboxes
|-- domaina.tld
| |-- user1
| |-- us
Wietse:
> > For example, if the application uses PHP, you can force an envelope sender
> > like this;
> >
> > sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix -t -i -r
> bounce.addr...@server.domain.tld
>
> The envelope sender may also be specified via additional
> parameters to the mail() function.
>
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:03AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> Michael Hellwig:
> >> > I've been butting my head against this one for quite some time now.
> >>
> >> You might want to read this document:
> >>
> >> http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html
> >>
>
Zitat von The Eye :
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:03AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Hellwig:
> I've been butting my head against this one for quite some time now.
You might want to read this document:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html
This decribes what is needed to av
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:03AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Hellwig:
> > I've been butting my head against this one for quite some time now.
>
> You might want to read this document:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html
>
> This decribes what is needed to avoid "user
Michael Hellwig:
> I've been butting my head against this one for quite some time now.
You might want to read this document:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_CLASS_README.html
This decribes what is needed to avoid "user unknown" and "relay access
denied" errors.
After this, setting up a suitable
Michael Tokarev:
> > The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf
> > parameter setting (with an OS-dependent default value, e.g., fifo
> > for Solaris and unix for everything else), and post-install can be
> > updated to edit master.cf accordingly.
>
> Maybe this is somethin
I've been butting my head against this one for quite some time now.
Given:
a system that used to be running courier-mta which started getting on my
nerves like crazy, which is why I decided to switch to the
postfix/dovecot combo that almost everyone seems to use nowadays.
What I had on the courier
02.05.2012 00:14, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Tokarev:
> [using "unix" instead of "fifo"]
>> And yes, I verified the socket code (instead of pipe code) on linux
>> a few days ago and it appears to work fine there too. So indeed, this
>> is a very good possibility too, but it does not cover sola
* Marko Weber :
> hello,
>
> is there any benefit of multiple check_helo_access?
> i see in some configs check_helo_access is in "smtpd_helo-
> smtpd_sender- smtpd_recipient_restrictions".
>
> my understanding is that check_helo_access is in
> smtpd_helo_restrictions enough.
> am i wrong?
If it
hello,
is there any benefit of multiple check_helo_access?
i see in some configs check_helo_access is in "smtpd_helo-
smtpd_sender- smtpd_recipient_restrictions".
my understanding is that check_helo_access is in
smtpd_helo_restrictions enough.
am i wrong?
thanks,
marko
31 matches
Mail list logo
