Re: Maintaining the address verification cache for positives

2012-09-04 Thread Sahil Tandon
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 17:13:44 +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote: > For example, when an existing account is deleted on the backend server, > Postfix will have the positive result, and maintain it for quite some > time using the default settings; > > $ /usr/sbin/postconf -d |grep address_verify_posi

Re: Auto-whitelist recipients

2012-09-04 Thread Henrik K
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:47:20AM +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote: > Am 04.09.2012 08:37, schrieb Robert Schetterer: > > Am 03.09.2012 20:36, schrieb Eddy Ilg: > >> Dear Postfix List, > >> > >> > >> I'd like to continously update whitelist for spamassassin of recipients > >> that my sasl users have

Re: Auto-whitelist recipients

2012-09-04 Thread Mark Martinec
Eddy, > I'd like to continously update whitelist for spamassassin of recipients > that my sasl users have sent mail to (i.e. when the recipients reply > they will surely not be considered as spam). I am not using per-user > spamassassin configurations (only a global configuration). > > I've fo

Re: Backup MXs and databases

2012-09-04 Thread Marcio Merlone
Em 03-09-2012 20:06, Andrew Beverley escreveu: On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 23:56 +0200, Titanus Eramius wrote: So, I guess my question is: How do you, good and experienced folks, keep your backup MXs updated? I've looked at two solutions so far: MySQL Replication +1 for mysql replication for backup

Re: Backup MXs and databases

2012-09-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 04.09.2012 14:07, schrieb Titanus Eramius: >> for postfix lookup tables you have usually a very simple >> database scheme with very few changes and 99.9% of all >> queries are readonly because postfix does even not need >> any write permissions to the database (and does not have >> it in any o

Re: Backup MXs and databases

2012-09-04 Thread Titanus Eramius
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 01:50:42 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > > Like this > > http://www.iheavy.com/2012/04/26/bulletproofing-mysql-replications-with-checksums/ > > * mixed transactional and non-transactional tables > not relevant in this context > why would someone mix innodb/myisam a database