Re: Inconsistency between postconf(5) and IPV6_README

2021-01-20 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:37:19AM +, Pau Amma wrote: > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_protocols says: > inet_protocols = all (DEFAULT) > http://www.postfix.org/IPV6_README.html says: inet_protocols = ipv4 > (DEFAULT: enable IPv4 only) > > The inconsistency should be fix

Inconsistency between postconf(5) and IPV6_README

2021-01-20 Thread Pau Amma
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_protocols says: inet_protocols = all (DEFAULT) http://www.postfix.org/IPV6_README.html says: inet_protocols = ipv4 (DEFAULT: enable IPv4 only) The inconsistency should be fixed.

Re: Logging Question: SASL Auth Failures?

2021-01-20 Thread Jim Seymour
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:33:37 -0500 (EST) Wietse Venema wrote: [snip] > > With rsyslogd.conf you can route based on content. > > :msg, contains, "SASL LOGIN" /var/log/whatever > :msg, contains, "SASL LOGIN" ~ > > This is based on information from the web, which is often incorrect. Ok. Thank

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Curtis Maurand
Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 20, 2021, at 10:27 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > > Dnia 20.01.2021 o godz. 15:48:29 Ganael Laplanche pisze: >>> So just try to create some simple "proxy" to your LDAP server that does only >>> one thing: if LDAP is available, just return the response from LDAP; if >

Re: Logging Question: SASL Auth Failures?

2021-01-20 Thread Wietse Venema
Jim Seymour: > Hi All, > > Each of the various servers I admin occasionally get inundated with > things like > > Jan 13 07:33:06 jimsun postfix/submission/smtpd[25328]: warning: > unknown[59.95.95.239]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: > UGFzc3dvcmQ6 This warning is produced by Post

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 20.01.2021 o godz. 15:48:29 Ganael Laplanche pisze: > > So just try to create some simple "proxy" to your LDAP server that does only > > one thing: if LDAP is available, just return the response from LDAP; if > > not, just returns "not found". And use that proxy in Postfix in place of > > your

Logging Question: SASL Auth Failures?

2021-01-20 Thread Jim Seymour
Hi All, Each of the various servers I admin occasionally get inundated with things like Jan 13 07:33:06 jimsun postfix/submission/smtpd[25328]: warning: unknown[59.95.95.239]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 I want these to go to the auth log, rather than, or in additi

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Wietse Venema
Ganael Laplanche: > Wietse> As explained later, the problem is not with LDAP lookup ERRORS, > Wietse> it is with LDAP returning a "not found" response (i.e. NOT an error). > Wietse> > Wietse> That should not be a problem with the proposed configuration: > Wietse> > Wietse> virtual_alias_maps =

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread natan
Hi Or use  two ldap - master- slave and use  haproxy like defaults  mode tcp  timeout connect 10s  timeout server  5500s  timeout client  5000s  log /dev/log local5 frontend ldap-389 mode tcp bind 127.0.0.1:389 option socket-stats option tcplog option tcpka timeout client 500s default_backend lda

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Ganael Laplanche
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:41:02 PM CET Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > So just try to create some simple "proxy" to your LDAP server that does only > one thing: if LDAP is available, just return the response from LDAP; if > not, just returns "not found". And use that proxy in Postfix in place of > y

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 20.01.2021 o godz. 15:26:39 Ganael Laplanche pisze: > > 2) as an "improvement" (if ignoring failures can be called that way) to speed > up delivery, do not fail when LDAP is unavailable as we have everything > needed > in further hash map So just try to create some simple "proxy" to your

Re: Ignoring a failing dictionary ?

2021-01-20 Thread Ganael Laplanche
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:40:23 PM CET Curtis Maurand wrote: Hello, Thanks to all of you for your answers. I have grouped my replies below: John> So why not run your own LDAP servers, which pull from those upstream John> LDAP servers, and then you can do your own retention rules as you John