Hi,
Apparently, searching Google, I still can't find a good solution
to build a fault tolerant emails platform.
Is there any good solution to synchronize 2 emails servers,
including incoming mails, having users connected to any of the
server?
No MX server for client.com:
# nslookup -type=mx client.com
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53
Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find client.com: No answer
Le 18/10/2020 à 23:16, Richard a
écrit
ail
will magically reappear. Using unison to sync it worked
for me, over 10years ago. But these days, just use dsync
part of dovecot, and your life will be happy. Quoting
Patrick Chemla : Hi Wietse,
Of course I thought about such
just rsync --delete --update from
the first one to the second. So I have a full image copy every 5
minutes, but only one real MTA.
I will check the NAS option, if there is no other way.
Thanks
Patrick
Le 24/01/2017 à 13:45, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Hi,
I have a running Fedora
Hi,
I have a running Fedora 24 emails server using postfix 3.1.3, with courier.
I wonder how to build a pair of MTAs to secure emails at all time,
having 2 servers receiving the emails, and users could connect to either
server to get emails, maybe on a load balanced way.
Problems are with sy
Le 16/11/2016 à 12:38, li...@lazygranch.com a écrit :
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:26:13 -0800
"li...@lazygranch.com" wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:52:14 +0200
Patrick Chemla wrote:
Le 16/11/2016 à 11:45, li...@lazygranch.com a écrit :
Is this a hack or a server problem. IP was
Le 16/11/2016 à 11:45, li...@lazygranch.com a écrit :
Is this a hack or a server problem. IP was listed in abusedb about a
year ago.
Nov 16 09:14:36 theranch postfix/smtpd[6094]: connect from
unknown[87.236.215.11]
Nov 16 09:14:36 theranch postfix/smtpd[6094]: lost connection after AUTH from
Le 23/05/2010 22:03, Wietse Venema a écrit :
> Obviously you have something like...
>
> transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
>
> in your "main.cf", don't you?
This was my problem.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Thanks for help Gian Carlo
Patrick
Le 23/05/2010 19:16, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
I made some simple tests puting mails through a telnet to port 25 of
> the front server.
>
> It still lookup for MX for domains exampleN.com and delivers through
> an outside address.
How do you know that?
I just look at the maillo
Le 23/05/2010 18:20, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Hi,
I am managing my emails on 2 Postfix 2.7 servers.
A front smtpd server receives all messages from outside and inside
users, and a back server handles email boxes for local domains deliveries.
I am trying to send directly
Hi,
I am managing my emails on 2 Postfix 2.7 servers.
A front smtpd server receives all messages from outside and inside
users, and a back server handles email boxes for local domains deliveries.
I am trying to send directly messages from the front smtpd to the back
server without looking to
Hi,
I wonder if there is a way to group messages deliveries to specific
domains on a single persistent smtp connexion.
I mean, if in the queue, I have some messages to deliver to one domain,
I would like to deliver them during one single persistent connexion,
instead of closing and opening a
Le 04/05/2010 10:07, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
> What will arrive if qmail uses /usr/sbin/sendmail or postfix uses
> /var/qmail/bin/sendmail ?
? Nothing, you disabled qmail I hope.
As I wrote, I am moving smoothly, means that actually the regular
traffic is still going through the
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade smoothly from qmail mono-instance to
postfix-multi-instances.
When I start the new postfix installation, I get the warning:
postfix/postfix-script: warning: /usr/lib/sendmail and
/usr/sbin/sendmail differ
postfix/postfix-script: warning: Replace one by a symbolic l
Le 27/04/2010 15:27, Israel Garcia a écrit :
could you share the script with us?
You can put whatever you want in the script. I am monitoring different
parts of the servers.
Extract:
# Identify the server by the last digit of his IP
ip3d=`/sbin/ifconfig| grep Bcast|grep 10.0.0|cut -d":
Le 27/04/2010 10:54, Patrick Ben Koetter a écrit :
* Israel Garcia:
> I have about 20 debian servers send all mail through a loadbalancer
> (haproxy) with 2backend smarthosts which send emails to internet. I
> have pflogsumm running only on every smarhost. As every smarthost see
> on IP
Hi,
I am running a smtp relay for different domains, and I want to separate
all traffic.
I would like to bind for each domain the same IP address to receive and
send messages, and it should be for each domain its own public IP address.
I understand that with postfix 2.7.0 multi-instances f
Hi,
I would like to relay messages to specific MX servers according to
sender domain, not recipient domain.
I saw the primitive sender_dependent_relayhost_maps but I don't know how
to use it.
Should I create a list and postmap it and set a line in my main.cf like :
sender_dependent_relayho
Hi,
I have a Postfix 2.6 relaying tons of emails to millions email addresses
and domains.
I have listed tens of thousands of email addresses and domains to which
I don't want to relay any more.
Is there a way to manage a local blacklist without spamassassin?
However, up to now I think spa
Le 16/02/2010 17:47, donovan jeffrey j a écrit :
DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
Again, I am doing every days exactly what required at
Le 16/02/2010 15:09, aa a écrit :
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
one of them without invoking always the same mail server
It could be an idea, in my opinion, but I'd prefer a "less ran
Le 11/01/2010 09:27, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/11/2010 1:02 AM:
Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell
us you're
not sending mass spam with this setup.
--
Stan
Le 11/01/2010 01:13, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Wietse,
Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
postfix reload
and report if this makes a difference.
Wietse
I have tested this
Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell us you're
not sending mass spam with this setup.
--
Stan
I have to do it for a customer who send as he said, only opt-in mass
emails. He has a big blacklisted email database w
Wietse,
Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
postfix reload
and report if this makes a difference.
Wietse
I have tested this since yesterday night.
I got some problems with Linux per user number of processes
Le 09/01/2010 20:54, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 12:37 PM:
I wen t there but did not find explanations about miss address lookup or
miss domain lookup.
While I have 122,000 messages in active queue I still don't understand
why statistics sho
Hi Stan,
Thanks for your interest.
Le 09/01/2010 20:21, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:17 AM:
Hi all,
I got these statistics:
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
interval Jan 9 19:09:03
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache
Hi all,
I got these statistics:
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
interval Jan 9 19:09:03
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: address
lo
Hi,
I will try all your advises, but something still very strange for me:
We see that postfix logs show that ehlo process is very slow through
postfix but very fast by hand. Even I have recorded through
tcpdump/WireShark and I can see that messages are sent very very very
quickly in about 1 s
Le 08/01/2010 00:43, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/qmgr[26441]: 5B91F873F6: removed
Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/smtp[27180]: 375DDD5923:
to=, relay=a139.localpc2105.com[10.0.0.139]:25,
conn_use
Le 08/01/2010 03:03, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
But the CPU of the box is idle more than 80%. It is clear that it is not a
matter of CPU, nor memory, nor disk. Something in the number of
processes/users/simultaneous tasks is blocking.
Indeed, the symptom of blocking
Le 07/01/2010 20:37, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 08:29:44PM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
Here the logs:
This is just the qmgr(8) warnings about a clogged queue. Other than
telling us that all the mail is going to "localpc2105.com", this
is not v
Le 07/01/2010 23:47, Stefan Caunter a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Chemla
wrote:
said "I just found that Postfix could send 1 million emails per hour
when I send less than a half million in 24 hours", but I can't make
sense of that, sorry.
I h
Le 07/01/2010 20:00, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Hi,
I am running Postfix 2.5.6 on a Fedora 11 Linux system on a hardware
based Intel I5/750 Quad Core, 8 Gb memory, 160Gb SSD hard disk.
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared)
and the active
Le 07/01/2010 20:03, Barney Desmond a écrit :
2010/1/8 Patrick Chemla
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared) and
the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages waiting for delivery.
here is my main.cf file:
That's some very thorough inform
Hi,
I am running Postfix 2.5.6 on a Fedora 11 Linux system on a hardware
based Intel I5/750 Quad Core, 8 Gb memory, 160Gb SSD hard disk.
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared)
and the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages waiting for
delivery.
The
36 matches
Mail list logo
