On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:50:26PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >Operationally a multi-instance system is easier to support. It
> >takes a small bit of effort to build, this is well worth it.
>
> Maybe it's the way my brain works but what you are suggesting seems
> more complicated to me.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> Multiple instances also give you a more clear view of the state of
> the system with clearer log entries, separate queues for filtered
> and unfiltered mail, ...
This last item is nothing to sneeze at. It means you can see at a
On 8/9/2012 6:36 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
This is certainly not simpler then.
I would suggest that your simplicity metric is not the right one,
simplicity is about ease of understanding and ongoing maintenace,
more than abo
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> This is certainly not simpler then.
I would suggest that your simplicity metric is not the right one,
simplicity is about ease of understanding and ongoing maintenace,
more than about effort to set it up. It takes more effort
On 8/9/2012 6:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:49PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead
of two instances on the same machine?
No, I am recommending two instances per machine, one before the
filters, and
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:49PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead
> of two instances on the same machine?
No, I am recommending two instances per machine, one before the
filters, and one after
Separately, I am recommending t
So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead of two
instances on the same machine?
-Original Message-
From: Viktor Dukhovni
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Issue with Postfix Amavisd-new S/MIME encryption and DKIM
On Thu, A
On 8/9/2012 3:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Noel Jones:
>> On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Noel Jones:
On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
> is implemented by modifying server responses. The
Noel Jones:
> On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Noel Jones:
> >> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
> >>> is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses
> >>> that Postfix will
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:48:19PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> The problem I'm having is this. It's my understanding that Amavis
> has to have an inject and re-inject port.
Certainly it listens for mail on the inject port, and forwards it
to the re-in(ject) port.
> In my case, I have cha
On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Noel Jones:
>> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
>>> is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses
>>> that Postfix will log may differ from the
On 8/9/2012 2:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So what are you saying is, instead of having amavis reinject back to
Postfix on 10022, to have it inject directly to the s/mime gateway
on port 10025 and then the s/mime gateway rein
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> So what are you saying is, instead of having amavis reinject back to
> Postfix on 10022, to have it inject directly to the s/mime gateway
> on port 10025 and then the s/mime gateway reinject back to postfix
> on 10026? All the
Noel Jones:
> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
> > is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses
> > that Postfix will log may differ from the responses that Postfix
> > actually sends or
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:57:00AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
> > is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses
> > that Postfix will log may differ from t
On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes
> is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses
> that Postfix will log may differ from the responses that Postfix
> actually sends or receives. This will b
Noel Jones:
> On 8/9/2012 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> >
> > The CLEANUP DAEMON rejects the header with 5cc
> >
> > The SMTP DAEMON transforms the reply into 4XX.
> >
> > The CLEANUP DAEMON does not know that the SMTP DAEMON has soft_bounce=yes.
> >
>
> maybe a note on the soft_bounce do
On 8/9/2012 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> The CLEANUP DAEMON rejects the header with 5cc
>
> The SMTP DAEMON transforms the reply into 4XX.
>
> The CLEANUP DAEMON does not know that the SMTP DAEMON has soft_bounce=yes.
>
maybe a note on the soft_bounce docs?
Something like:
Note: with "s
On 8/9/2012 9:51 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:28:57AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
I have the following setup:
Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
integrated into the same system:
Email flows is as follows:
Postfix-
-->10021--->Am
Nikolaos Milas:
>to force relaying to*both* those servers (mail AND mail2) at the
>same time? According to the documentation, I don't see that's
>possible (it seems only one transport:nexthop definition is
>acceptable), but can we achieve this somehow (except using
>always_bcc on mail.example.com)
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:15:45PM +0300, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> >>>/etc/postfix/transportmap
> >>>example.com relay:[mail.example.com], relay:[mail2.example.com]
> >No. As documented.
> >
> >>>to force relaying to*both* those servers (mail AND mail2) at the
> >>>same time? According to the docu
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:28:57AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> I have the following setup:
>
> Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
> integrated into the same system:
>
> Email flows is as follows:
>
> Postfix-
> -->10021--->Amavis--->10022>Postfix
Hi,
I have the following setup:
Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
integrated into the same system:
Email flows is as follows:
Postfix-
-->10021--->Amavis--->10022>Postfix>10025>Djigzo>10026>Postfix>25>Internet
Postfix injects
mailing list subscriber:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > On 8/8/2012 4:22 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I asked this earlier but maybe skipped your attention.
> >>
> >> In summary,
> >>
> >> Why do body/he
On 8/8/2012 1:32 πμ, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:58:41AM +0300, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
>A question: Could we use the format:
>
>/etc/postfix/transportmap
>example.com relay:[mail.example.com], relay:[mail2.example.com]
No. As documented.
>to force relaying to*both* tho
25 matches
Mail list logo
