On 2014-02-04 07:53, Solk Maaker wrote:
Only downside is that this setup needs two ip addresses.
use 127.0.0.0/8 range for signers, and for wan only do verifying, this
only need opendkim-verify.conf and opendkim-signer.conf with is binded
in master.cf as services where it fit
You can do both on one machine using multiple postfix instances, one
for incoming mail and another for outgoing mail, each running on its
own IP. But since you already have multiple postfix instances on two
machines it seems silly to complicate a working setup for little
gain, unless you're tryin
Thanks again Jason - I get this using your specified telnet test:
500 Hash invalid in SRS address.
So I have been playing around with it more now in light of this new
information - here is what I have found:
* It works and delivers mail when the "-I" switch is NOT present (this
has been m
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:48:28PM +0100, Oliver Eales wrote:
> The (5) bounce man page states:
> --snip
> bounce_size_limit (default: 5)
> The maximal amount of original message text that is sent in a
> non-delivery notification. Specify a byte count. A message is
> returned as either mes
Hello,
i have a question regarding the behavior of the postfix bounce daemon when it
generates bounces.
The (5) bounce man page states:
--snip
bounce_size_limit (default: 5)
The maximal amount of original message text that is sent in a non-delivery
notification. Specify a byte count. A
Hi Michael,
It all looks fine config wise. But seems the bounce, although going through
cleanup according to log, isn't rewriting.
All I can suggest is to check there's no conflicting config elsewhere regarding
canonical etc. such as master.cf overriding it etc.
And maybe test the decoding by
On 2/2/2014 11:47 PM, Jason Woods wrote:
Hi Michael,
I did some tweaks on pfixtools I will have to have a look and check for you (I
use it too.)
It's not the ideal method though and a milter is really the correct way to do
SRS as the canonical filters, although giving almost desired effect, a
On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:37 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> smells like chroot in master.cf without a sane configuration for chroot
> Debian?
How about a mismatch between /etc's resolv.conf and postfix's? Fixed. Please
excuse the newbie noise...
--
Glenn English
Am 03.02.2014 19:32, schrieb Glenn English:
> At a site I admin, Postfix is not sending, sometimes. The problem is always
> that it cannot find a mx. When I type "host -t ", it comes back within a
> few ms with a name. When I ask for that server's IP, it's also fast. And it
> always sends when
At a site I admin, Postfix is not sending, sometimes. The problem is always
that it cannot find a mx. When I type "host -t ", it comes back within a
few ms with a name. When I ask for that server's IP, it's also fast. And it
always sends when the DNS records are on the server. But when I try to
Am 03.02.2014 17:29, schrieb Eric Cunningham:
> After having completed those 2 steps, I added LOGIN back to
> /etc/postfix/sasl/smtpd.conf to again allow outgoing
> emails from Windows-based devices as follows:
>
> pwcheck_method: saslauthd
> mech_list: PLAIN LOGIN
> log_level: 3
>
> After a f
On 01/06/2014 03:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:17:41PM -0500, Eric Cunningham wrote:
The problem is entirely with the monstrosity below:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
Fine.
check_sender
On 2/3/2014 7:45 AM, pgala wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i am using sender_canonical_maps to rewrite sender when i want send outgoing
> mail. Sender_canonical_maps is:
> Sender_canonical_maps---
> /^.*/ mym...@isp.com
> -
> Sender_canonical_classes=envelope_address.
>
>
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:17:56PM +0530, Clement Thomas wrote:
>
> > The total size of mails is expected to be around 200 to 300 GB. My
> > concern here is; will too many mails in HOLD queue, impact the
> > performance? Is it the right way to handle this use-case?
>
> Good em
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:17:56PM +0530, Clement Thomas wrote:
> The total size of mails is expected to be around 200 to 300 GB. My
> concern here is; will too many mails in HOLD queue, impact the
> performance? Is it the right way to handle this use-case?
Good email performance is generally un
Hello Michael,
On 02/03/2014 02:41 PM, m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
> 3 feb 2014 г. 17:08:31 GMT+04:00, IMAP List Administration
> wrote:
> >
> >Indeed, the problem was being caused by bug(s) in the OpenBSD
> >implementation of
> >gethostbyaddr().
>
> Care to give some more information about those bug
Hi,
We have a scheduled maintenance for around 8 to 10 hours for our
Mail storage servers. During the downtime, we plan to HOLD all incoming
mails and release them once the storage servers are up. To our existing
smtpd restrictions, We added smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions and it
worked. (p
03.02.2014 17:37, m...@tls.msk.ru wrote:
[]
Please excuse me for this - sent 3 times.
It was my first attempt to use my android client for sending mail,
it had an issue submitting it to our (postfix) serveer and queued
mail, but i weren't able to find where the queue is..
/mjt
Hi,
i am using sender_canonical_maps to rewrite sender when i want send outgoing
mail. Sender_canonical_maps is:
Sender_canonical_maps---
/^.*/ mym...@isp.com
-
Sender_canonical_classes=envelope_address.
I also used dovecot to reply mail when recipient's ma
3 feb 2014 г. 17:08:31 GMT+04:00, IMAP List Administration
wrote:
>
>Indeed, the problem was being caused by bug(s) in the OpenBSD
>implementation of
>gethostbyaddr().
Care to give some more information about those bug(s) please?
Thanks,
/mjt
3 feb 2014 г. 17:08:31 GMT+04:00, IMAP List Administration
wrote:
>
>Indeed, the problem was being caused by bug(s) in the OpenBSD
>implementation of
>gethostbyaddr().
Care to give some more information about those bug(s) please?
Thanks,
/mjt
--
Отправлено через К-9 Mail. Извините за краткост
3 feb 2014 г. 17:08:31 GMT+04:00, IMAP List Administration
wrote:
>
>Indeed, the problem was being caused by bug(s) in the OpenBSD
>implementation of
>gethostbyaddr().
Care to give some more information about those bug(s) please?
Thanks,
/mjt
--
Отправлено через К-9 Mail. Извините за краткост
On 2/3/2014 5:31 AM, Solk Maaker wrote:
>> From DKIM's perspective it really makes no sense to validate a
>> signature generated by yourself.
>> ( How often do you check your own identity card to prove that you
>> are you? )
>
> Yes, that is true, there is no point to verify my own signature, but
On 2/3/2014 5:29 AM, Héctor Moreno Blanco wrote:
>> H?ctor Moreno Blanco:
>>> We have our mail relays. In these relays we check the users aliases in
>>> our LDAP.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, we want other servers to relay on our sides
>>> authenticating with a fix user with sasl_password, but I can't make
[resending to list, where I meant to send it...]
Hi Wietse,
On 01/31/2014 04:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> IMAP List Administration:
>> Hello List,
>>
>> a week or so ago I upgraded my OpenBSD mail server from OpenBSD 5.3 to 5.4,
>> and
>> at the same time went from postfix-2.9.6 to postfix-2.11
From DKIM's perspective it really makes no sense to validate a
signature generated by yourself.
( How often do you check your own identity card to prove that you are
you? )
Yes, that is true, there is no point to verify my own signature, but in
case of virtual domains, if domain1 does not belo
>H?ctor Moreno Blanco:
>> We have our mail relays. In these relays we check the users aliases in
>> our LDAP.
>>
>> Furthermore, we want other servers to relay on our sides
>> authenticating with a fix user with sasl_password, but I can't make this
>> work.
>>
>> smtpd_sender_login_maps = ldap:mat
Solk Maaker:
If user sends mail from domain1 (virtual domain) to domain2 (virtual
domain) in same machine, mail is signed but signature is not
verified - not OK.
From DKIM's perspective it really makes no sense to validate a
signature generated by yourself.
( How often do you check you
Hi
Problem description:
If user sends mail out (to Internet) from domain1 (virtual domain),
mail is signed and in receiver side mail is verified - everything is OK.
If mail comes in (from Internet) to domain1 (virtual domain) wiht DKIM
signature, signature is verified - everything is OK.
If use
29 matches
Mail list logo
