On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 05:33:47PM +1300, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 30/10/24 17:18, Adriel via Postfix-users wrote:
> > If users are added in main MX, how can they be synchronized to backup MX
> > for relay access?
>
> I would recommend revisiting your reasoning for wanting a second ser
On 30/10/24 17:18, Adriel via Postfix-users wrote:
If users are added in main MX, how can they be synchronized to backup MX
for relay access?
That's up to you to keep them in sync, perhaps with a master/slave
replicated database, or simply using rsync and a cron job on the
appropriate db file
If users are added in main MX, how can they be synchronized to backup MX
for relay access?
Thanks
On 2024-10-29 23:11, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:44:16PM +0800, Adriel via Postfix-users
wrote:
I would like to set up two MX servers with equal priority
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 02:15:42PM +, Ken Gillett via Postfix-users wrote:
> It then runs ken against unix:passwd.byname and gets a result:-
>
> > dict_proxy_lookup: table=unix:passwd.byname flags=lock|utf8_request key=ken
> > -> status=0 result=ken::xxx:xx:Ken Gillett:/Users/ken:/bi
Huge log is being held for approval, but probably not required to pass the
message to the list.
I have found why:-
user@mydomain works
user@myhostname fails
The first is listed in virtual_users, but the latter is not. This is an Apple
thing. I'll have a look at that in the Ser
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:35:54PM +, Ken Gillett via Postfix-users wrote:
> I have found why:-
>
> user@mydomain works
> user@myhostname fails
>
> The first is listed in virtual_users, but the latter is not.
Indeed users listed in virtual(5) get a free ride regardless of addres
> On Tue 29 Oct 2024, at 14:38, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:35:54PM +, Ken Gillett via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> …
>> However I am still puzzled that after the latter is not found in
>> virtual_users, the address checking continues to check in pa
> "Ken" == Ken Gillett via Postfix-users writes:
> Thank you for your words of wisdom Wietse. 😉
> I rather thought you understood how 'silly' it would be to run a find command
> for postconf as I had already clearly explained (at least 3 times 🙂) I knew
> where both versions were located an
I would like to set up two MX servers with equal priority
One MX server resides on the same physical machine as the Dovecot service
the other MX server is located in a remote data center
Depends what the intent is. Is it for load balancing or is it for backup
because server A is sometimes offli
Well, a standard product from Apple is hardly a 'special setup', but that
aside, I am not wedded to the use of MacOSX Server. Far from it. I have been
intending to ditch it as soon as it makes sense for me to do so, which for
reasons that are no ones business but my own, has not been the case so
Ken Gillett via Postfix-users:
> > There is a way to make the Postfix SMTP daemon more chatty in the
> > logfile, but that works only if you can update and verify the right
> > configuration files. Which you haven't, going by your reports sofar.
> >
> >/path/to/postconf debug_peer_list=ip-of-t
Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users:
>
> Hello Viktor,
>
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:06:12AM +0900, Nico Schottelius via
> > Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> >> The maps/hashes that make a lot of sense on VMs/servers for avoiding
> >> reloading postfix
On 30/10/24 00:36, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
You haven't posted the usual output of:
$ postconf -nf
or (because Postfix 2.5.5 predates "postconf -Mf"), the verbatim content
of the non-comment lines of "master.cf". Nor any logs showing the
purported problem address being rej
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:44:16PM +0800, Adriel via Postfix-users wrote:
> I would like to set up two MX servers with equal priority, both using
> Postfix as the MTA software. One MX server resides on the same physical
> machine as the Dovecot service, and I am familiar with their configuration.
Adriel via Postfix-users:
> I would like to set up two MX servers with equal priority, both using
> Postfix as the MTA software. One MX server resides on the same physical
> machine as the Dovecot service, and I am familiar with their
> configuration. However, the other MX server is located in a
The problem appears to be that when it fails to find anything for
k...@macserve.home, postfix splits the address into ken and @macserve.home
(after getting that from mydestination).
It then runs ken against unix:passwd.byname and gets a result:-
> dict_proxy_lookup: table=unix:passwd.byname fla
I would like to set up two MX servers with equal priority, both using
Postfix as the MTA software. One MX server resides on the same physical
machine as the Dovecot service, and I am familiar with their
configuration. However, the other MX server is located in a remote data
center separate from
Dnia 29.10.2024 o godz. 12:53:00 Ken Gillett via Postfix-users pisze:
> $ postconf alias_maps local_recipient_maps mydomain
> alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
> local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $alias_maps
> mydomain = home
>
> $ postconf myhostname myorigin mydestination
> myhostname
On Tue 29 Oct 2024, at 01:04, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
>
> Use the right postconf command to verify that the configuration of the
> running master matches the settings that you poresented in the
> first postihg and that I verified on my own machine.
>
> If that configuration is wh
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:07:00AM +, Ken Gillett via Postfix-users wrote:
> However, natural curiosity and desire to know more has meant spending
> far more time on this than intended, but I would still like to find
> the solution.
The local_recipient_maps table is queried by:
- The ful
Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users:
>
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users writes:
> > Consider using LMDB or CDB instead.
> >
> > - CDB is optimized for tables that don't change.
> >
> > - LMDB was proposed 10 yeara ago as a replacement for Berkeley DB,
> > because of a licensing issue.
>
> Tha
Ken Gillett via Postfix-users:
> As I said, this server will soon be replaced by something not
> running MacOS and with the latest postfix, but I started this topic
> as I hoped to find a simple fix to a minor configuration problem
> and improve postfix operation for me in the meantime. However,
>
Yes Apple can be inclined to rely on older versions of some of their included
software. Probably sticking to what worked at the time, but then it becomes out
of date. My Mac Mini Server is a 5,3 (Mid 2011) running the latest OSX it can
which is High Sierra 10.13.6. So yes, out of date, but it s
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [29/10/2024 14:07] :
>
> Ohh, that is good to know. So as long as a couple of weeks before
> expiration (think letsencrypt) the certs are renewed, it is virtually
> guaranteed to work all the time?
The lifetime of smtpd processes is determined via the max_use a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users writes:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:06:12AM +0900, Nico Schottelius via
> > Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> >> The maps/hashes that make a lot of sense on VMs/servers for avo
25 matches
Mail list logo
