On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Janos Dohanics:
> > em0: flags=8843 metric 0
> > mtu 1500
> > options=209b
> > ether 00:16:3e:6f:18:c9 inet 199.102.77.98 netmask 0xfff8
> > broadcast 199.102.77.103 inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe6f:18c9%em0
> > pre
Janos Dohanics:
> em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
>
> options=209b
> ether 00:16:3e:6f:18:c9
> inet 199.102.77.98 netmask 0xfff8 broadcast 199.102.77.103
> inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe6f:18c9%em0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
> inet 199.102.77.99 netmask 0xfff8 broad
The Postfix master daemon opens three sockets per master.cf entry:
the service endpoint (the first field in master.cf), plus one
socketpair. This single socketpair is used to receive updates from
all the child processes that implement the corresponding master.cf
service.
The current stock master.
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:30:55 -0400
"Bill Cole" wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2015, at 16:39, Janos Dohanics wrote:
>
> > Hello Postfix Experts,
>
> More important in this case: native English speakers.
>
> > I want Postfix send mail from 199.233.231.177, so I set:
> >
> > # postconf inet_interfaces
> > in
Hello,
tl;dr: Postfix keeps open unix sockets that seem useless to me. Why?
First note I am new to postfix, so I may be wrongly interpreting some
commands; but using it on a VPS with a limit of 500 non-TCP sockets
triggered the limit. So I tried to search why it is using so many sockets.
It
On 5 Jun 2015, at 16:39, Janos Dohanics wrote:
Hello Postfix Experts,
More important in this case: native English speakers.
I want Postfix send mail from 199.233.231.177, so I set:
# postconf inet_interfaces
inet_interfaces = 199.233.231.177, localhost
But, the mail log on the destination
Hello Postfix Experts,
I have a FreeBSD 10.1-STABLE system with postfix-2.11.5,1.
# ifconfig
lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
options=63
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
nd6 option
Hi,
If it's possible to throttle based on MX record for a domain, I'd
really appreciate your help.
Hi, Alex. I don't do it that way, but that sounds simpler than the way I
do it! Interested to see what others come up with.
I didn't receive any other responses. Is that because it's not
On 06/05/2015 02:00 AM, Glenn English wrote:
If it's possible to throttle based on MX record for a domain, I'd
really appreciate your help.
I do it with the iptables packet filter (I'm on Linux, but I suspect
there are similar packages on other systems).
I'm doing packet shaping with tc/h
On 5 Jun 2015, at 14:38, Tech Support wrote:
All;
I am somewhat new to Postfix, so I hope that someone has mercy on me.
I
need to setup a rule such that any inbound email that matches gets
forwarded
to a particular user. That is, I have a host, mail.acme.com and any
email
that contains only
On 6/5/2015 1:29 PM, Daniel Miller wrote:
> June 4 2015 4:29 PM, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
>> Daniel Miller:
>>
>>> Is there a way for a policy server to validate senders using
>>> Postfix's built-in authentication (like meeting permit_mynetworks
>>> and permit_sasl_authenticated)? ?Or must the n
All;
I am somewhat new to Postfix, so I hope that someone has mercy on me. I
need to setup a rule such that any inbound email that matches gets forwarded
to a particular user. That is, I have a host, mail.acme.com and any email
that contains only digits as the user (ie, 1234567...@mail.acme.co
June 4 2015 4:29 PM, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
> Daniel Miller:
>
>> Is there a way for a policy server to validate senders using
>> Postfix's built-in authentication (like meeting permit_mynetworks
>> and permit_sasl_authenticated)? ?Or must the necessary checks be
>> duplicated?
>
> Let Postf
On 6/5/2015 1:46 AM, Zalezny Niezalezny wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> is it possible to check in the Postfix logs if user delete/receive
> message ?
>
> Or to check if message was dropped by the server ?
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Zalezny
The postfix logs will show what happened to the mess
Zalezny Niezalezny:
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> on the one of our SMTP servers we are receiving a lot of duplicate messages
> with different time stamp and ID. The same message(with the same content)
> is received at : 11:20, 13:50, 16:30.
>
> What could be a reason for it ? Could it be a problem wit
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:36:03AM +0200, Per Thorsheim wrote:
> RFC2595 says that TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA is REQUIRED when
> configuring TLS for IMAP, POP & AMAP.
>
> All other cipher suites are OPTIONAL.
Time marches on, while old RFCs stay the same.
> I'm sure I'm missing out on so
Sorry lads,
This was to go to the dbmail user group rather than postfix.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: 04 June 2015 16:20
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: IMF envelope behaviour
Ciaran Sco
On 06/05/2015 08:10 PM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
> On our postfix 2.10.1 we have some mails "sent" (?) with in the log the
> code "250 Queued!" and not "250 OK" what does it mean ?
The same, it's a direct response from the other server that you're
sending to, so some may say "Queued", some may say "
* Francis SOUYRI :
> Hello,
>
> On our postfix 2.10.1 we have some mails "sent" (?) with in the log
> the code "250 Queued!" and not "250 OK" what does it mean ?
Please show the entire log line. Some OTHER server might say "250
Queued" etc. - as long as it says "250 SOMETHING" it's OK!
RFC2595 says that TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA is REQUIRED when
configuring TLS for IMAP, POP & AMAP.
All other cipher suites are OPTIONAL.
RFC4616 replaced section 6 of RFC2595, with updated info for SASL.
RFC3207 obsoleted RFC247, and covers both TCP/25 and the submission port
(RFC2476).
Hello,
On our postfix 2.10.1 we have some mails "sent" (?) with in the log the
code "250 Queued!" and not "250 OK" what does it mean ?
Best regards.
Francis
Hello Colleagues,
on the one of our SMTP servers we are receiving a lot of duplicate messages
with different time stamp and ID. The same message(with the same content)
is received at : 11:20, 13:50, 16:30.
What could be a reason for it ? Could it be a problem with Postfix server
on the our client
Hi,
You can delete spam messages after N days.
I wouldn't feed too much spam into sa-learn. DB is limited in performances. You
need to feed ham as well.
Here is a fix for (spam) messages originated from sources with Received headers
causing SpamAssassin to misfire RBL checks:
Received: from H
23 matches
Mail list logo
