Hi everybody...
In theory, it's possible to centralize and share the Postfix address
verification database used by verify daemon across multiple servers using
memcache
Please, has anyone implemented this setup? If so, how well does it work in
practice?
Thanks in advance,
Pete._
Thanks Benny, and sorry for the HTML part... (my fault)
It seems i have a whimsical DKIM signer that needs some review.. :-)
Regards,
Pete.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2025 at 02:16:10 PM GMT+2, Benny Pedersen via
Postfix-users wrote:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-07-22
David Marco via Postfix-users:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved to the
> HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s) of that
> message.
>
> Additionally, even after releasing the message from H
Hi,
I'm using Postfix 3.7.11 and I've noticed that when a message is moved to the
HOLD queue, the mailq command does not display the recipient(s) of that message.
Additionally, even after releasing the message from HOLD to the deferred queue
using postsuper -H , the mailq output still hides th
Thanks Viktor, i missundersating postfix documentation... i am doing something
wrong
Thanks a lot again!
Pete.
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025 at 06:25:22 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni via
Postfix-users wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 03:35:07PM +, Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users
Hi everyone,
I'm running a Postfix server and have encountered an issue where some SMTP
clients (usually Amazon servers) keep their connections open even after
successfully sending a message. Over time, this behavior causes all available
smtpd connection slots (e.g., 100 concurrent connections)
Hi everybody...
is there anyway to make smtpd and/or qmgr be slighty more verbose?
i would like to have more info pero line about "from" and "to", something like
this:
Feb 13 12:34:56 mailserver postfix/smtpd[12345]: 6F84B1A241:
client=mail.example.com[192.168.0.1], from=,
to=, size=1234, nrcpt=
Viktor, thanks a lot for your time. it is now cristal clear to me... i owe
you a beer! :-)
Kind regards,
Pete.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 06:02:00 AM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni via
Postfix-users wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:12:57AM +0800, LinuxMail.cc via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi everybody...
i think Wietse has explaned this before, but i cannot find the posts, so please
excuse with me if i ask this again.
I would like to clearify with myslef how Postfix smtp daemon deals with remote
MXs of a destination.
1.- When there are different MX with different weight but the DN
Hi all,
is it possible to have several Postfix instances to use a centralized Postfix
server for address verification probes when this centralized server is NOT an
MDA but a relay to external MDAs?
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
___
Postfix-users mailing list
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 08:46:01 PM GMT+1, Vince Heuser via
Postfix-users wrote:
>I recently upgraded to mail_version = 3.4.23
>Suddenly, Postfix no longer logs the lines with IP addresses for the
>connections.
>There use to be some additional log lines with sender ip addresses.
Thanks Wietse, yes it is clear in your doc, but both messages go through
filter?? despite what the MAIL FROM is?
Thanks,
Pedro.
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 03:34:34 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
> To my understanding,
Hi all,
after reading the documention from Viktor and Wietse about this issue, there is
still something i do not have clear enough... Please excuse me!
How does Postfix behave with the smuggled email? i mean... what happens with
Milters and after-queue filters?
To my understanding, the Smuggled
Thanks Wietse, sometimes we want to stretch Postifx like gum beyond limits...
Thanks again, Mr!
Pete.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 02:32:11 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
> Postfix documentation states clearl
Microsoft incident EX680695 (sorry if i recall wrongly).
Solved now!
Pete.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 03:24:03 PM GMT+2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
via Postfix-users wrote:
On 11.10.23 15:06, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users wrote:
>Since this morning, various MX hosts in *.mail.pr
Hi,
Postfix documentation states clearly that XFORDWARD is intended for scenarios
like this:
Client -> MTA1-> Content_filter -> MTA2
And then Content_filter is able to get the IP of Client. Works great!
But i was wondering... what i chain more MTAs?
Client -> MTA1 - > MTA2 -> Content_filter ->
Hi all,
does anyone know how to use different content_filter based on sender domain?
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Thanks all!!!
digging it
Pete.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 09:45:03 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
If no-one else posts one, I can post a solution that:
- relies on smtpd_delay_reject=yes to postpone check_policy lookup
until RCPT TO.
- disables the SIZE announcem
Hi all...
Currently Postfix do not show in log the Recipient of emails that exceed
Meesage_size_limit becasue MAIL FROM comes before RCPTO TO... butis there any
nice way of forcing Postfix to reject that email after the RCPTO TO?
I have considered to make a body check like this:
/.{10-}/
Hi all,
Is there anyway to check for potential errors in Postifx confiuration files
before movig them to /etc/postfix
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> Please, is there any way? to have a centralized Verify database?? my
> intention is to reduce the number of probes in Postfix farms...
> Thanks,
You could try https://www.postfix.org/memcache_table.5.html
- Give it enough memory
Hi,
Please, is there any way to have a centralized Verify database?? my intention
is to reduce the number of probes in Postfix farms...
Thanks,
Pete.
Understood!
Thanks a lot Wietse and Viktor!
Tete.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 08:03:36 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Sorry, but i am confused... documentation is accurate, but probably
> not my understading of it...
Instead of arguing about what happens, l
relaytakes place... my understanding was that
unreacahble meant "cannot connect to remote smtp port"...
Thanks again!
Pete.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 07:52:43 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:55:26PM +0000, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 07:23:14 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:>>Pedro David Marco:>>> Hi,>> Postfix
documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:>>>> smtp_fallback_relay (default:
$fallback_relay):>> Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP desti
Hi,
Postfix documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:
smtp_fallback_relay (default: $fallback_relay):
Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP destinations that can't be found or
that are unreachable. With Postfix 2.2 and earlier this parameter is called
fallback_relay.
I have destination
On Monday, March 28, 2022, 12:01:58 AM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
| the inspiration for my efforts.
Thanks for your efforts, Wietse... and for all your support in the list!!!
Regards..
Pete.
Thanks a lot...
You understood me correctly! thanks for your kindness...
with the INFO action, a new log line is added by cleanup daemon.. What i was
trying is to make smtp daemon add that header value to its usual log lines..
Thanks,
Pete.
>On Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 04:20:31 PM GMT+1, p
Hi,
is it possible to configure Postfix stmp daemon to add in its log the value of
a specific header?
Thanks!
Pete.
>On Thursday, June 17, 2021, 05:16:29 PM GMT+2, João Silva
wrote:
>the logs showed that the smtp process was not resolving domains
Joao,
just to discard an UDP overflood...
paste to the list the result of command # netstat -suna
Pedro.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 10:55:04 PM GMT+1, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote: >- For *SQL and LDAP, change is immediate.
>- For indexed tables, when switching to a new client connection.
>- For flat files (CIDR, PCRE, ..., main.cf), worst case $max_idle
> times $max_use, but typically of course
Thanks Viktor and Wietse... i will keep digging it out!!
My understading was what you said, so probably the problem is anywhere else...
thanks again!
Pedreter.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 05:23:04 PM GMT+1, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Pedro David Ma
Ops, forgot to mention that, thanks Wietse...
postfix restart means 'postfix stop ; postfix start'
maybe it would be a good idea to introduce some delay between stop and start?
Thanks,
Pedreter.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 04:54:38 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro D
Hi!
i have this in my main.cf:
address_verify_transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport_para_vrfy
It works ok when i add a new domain, but when i modify an exsiting one and do
the corresponding postmap and postfix restart, randomlysome Postfix smtpd
processes (not all of them!!!) keeps trying
Thanks, Ron, Wietse, and Viktor... i will put an eye on this, having in mind
all your remarks...
Pete
On Monday, October 26, 2020, 10:46:51 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Bill Cole:
> On 26 Oct 2020, at 6:07, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> > Hi...
> > flush
>On Monday, October 26, 2020, 05:31:05 PM GMT+1, Ron Wheeler
wrote: >
>Could be just that the other end was busy receiving someone else's mail.
Takes 2 to tango!
>No big attachments?
Thanks Ron... size no bigger than 500KB... if remote is busy... in the log at
least i should see
>On Monday, October 26, 2020, 05:09:41 PM GMT+1, Ron Wheeler
wrote:
>You might want to take a look at what is in the queue.
>Flushing the queue means communicating with other mail servers and the reason
>that mail is in the queue is that it was "too hard" to deliver it the first
>tim
Hi...
flushing the queue with 'postqueue -f'' normally produces instant flush but
sometimes it takes some time to do it... it always works! but sometimes with a
long delay...
just out of curiosity... why does this happen? is it qmgr daemon waiting for
anything? is there any way for force it?
T
Hi!
Is it possible to make Postfix Reject instead of warn for "Illegal address
syntax"?
Thanks!
P.
level{'calm'}++;
Thanks Wietse!
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 6:08:11 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> I use Devuan Ascii. It uses GLIBC 2.24
> My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals
> with deferred emails...
as good as it gets... thanks Viktor!
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 5:53:53 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Pedro David Marco
> wrote:
>
> My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals with
> deferred ema
I use Devuan Ascii. It uses GLIBC 2.24
My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals with deferred
emails... What do you think, Wietse?
Thanks,
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 4:53:45 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks Ma
shows UTC time despite system localtime, while
other postfix elements, like headers added to the email, use localtime (CEST in
my case)...
Thanks...
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 2:21:34 PM GMT+2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
On 24.10.19 09:05, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>Normal
that most lilkely Postfix cannot read some file
somewhere... but i have checked files permisisons and i have not any clue..
there are no errors in Posfrix log.
Thanks again,
Pedro.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 10:43:49 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Tha
Thanks Wietse..
The output is this:
# date ; env - dateWed Oct 23 21:22:20 CEST 2019Wed Oct 23 21:22:20 CEST 2019#
It is actual valid localtime...
Thanks again,
Pedro.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 3:56:51 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> my P
Hi,
sorry for the semi-off-topic, but as Docusign is using Postfix and they may
have issues... is there anyone from DocuSign in the list?
If so, please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
PedroD
>On Thursday, May 31, 2018, 9:57:17 AM GMT+2, Maurizio Caloro
wrote: >Hello Together
>>I ask me if are possible to view on console with postfix command witch
mail’s are holding back, Status mailtraffic, and so on not mail.log about
different reasons - blacklisted, spam, or score - and
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 6:07:01 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>More specifically, it is implemented in trivial-rewrite(8)
>and is used indirectly by qmgr(8) to schedule deliveries
>for the appropriate nexthop. The smtp(8) delivery agent
>does not perform nexthop selection, it sends
>Wietse Venema:
> Pedro David Marco:
> > Hi,
> > with Postfix 2.11 i am tryting to use a relayhost for non-local mail..
> > if i put:
> > relayhost = [192.168.1.10]
> > in main.cf, then it works ok.
> >
> > But if i p
Hi,
with Postfix 2.11 i am tryting to use a relayhost for non-local mail..
if i put:
relayhost = [192.168.1.10]
in main.cf, then it works ok.
But if i put it in master.cf like this:
smtp unix - - - - - smtp
-o relayhost=[192.168.1.10]
then it does not w
>http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_fallback_relay
>
> Wietse
Wietse,
is there any chance to suggest a future feature to have this done via the
transport file?
PedroD
>Given your smtpd_mumble_restrictions rule, permit_mynetworks allows
>a client to skip the reject_unverified_whatever check.
> Wietse
why Wietse? permit_mynetworks is on first place and should basically only allow
loopback according tomynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [:::127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128
Thanks Wietse but the sending IP is not listed in $mytetworks...
---Pedro.
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Recipient verification with sending IP equal to probe IP
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi!
> I am doing recipient a
Hi!
I am doing recipient address verification with reject_unverified _recipient
and it works pretty well, but i havenoticed that when the sending IP is the
same as the vrfy probing IP address, then this restriction is not applied.
does it make sense?
i have this in in my main.cf:
mynetworks =
Great... Thanks+=10 Noel!!
-Pedro
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: feedback about reject_non_fqdn_sender restriction...
On 11/22/2016 4:22 AM, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i was wonderin
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> i am seeing lines in postfix logs like this:
> postfix/qmgr[1084]: 955AE4009A: from= burk...@server1.domainomitted.com>, size=10346, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> please note the "space" in the user part of the from between cesar and burklez
&
Fool me...
crystal clear!
Thanks Boris, Danke!
From: Boris Behrens
To: Pedro David Marco
Cc: Postfix Users
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: space character in email address
Check this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Local-part
- space
Hi,
i was wondering to what extent is it a good idea to use to use the sender
restriction "reject_non_fqdn_sender" to block some spam...
is anyone using it? any feedback, please?
what would happen with mails from <> ??
Thanks in advance,
---Pedro
Hi,
i am seeing lines in postfix logs like this:
postfix/qmgr[1084]: 955AE4009A: from=,
size=10346, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
please note the "space" in the user part of the from between cesar and burklez
my understading was that no space was allowed in an email addresss...
am i right?
Regards,
---
Sorry, my fault...
From: Bill Cole
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: REJECT and "optional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 9:24, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Bill...
> this is my restrictions config:
>
>
>
ional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 7:52, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> yes, i have a check_sender_access - after- the check_client_access,
> buti must be doing something wrong because the reject should have been
> done
Thanks Bill...
this is my restrictions config:
From: Bill Cole
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: REJECT and "optional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 7:52, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> yes, i have a
that IP with that text???
Thanks!
Pedreter.
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: REJECT and "optional text" question...
Pedro David Marco:
> check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/special_cli
Hello,
I have a sender restriction like this:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/special_clients
and in special_clients file:
205.201.128.108REJECT You are blacklisted
What i see is that it works and the c
6, 9:10 PM
Pedro David Marco:
>
is there anyway to force Postfix to look up again the list
of mail
> exchangers addresses for the
destination host/domain and try to
> send
them again???
The
Postfix SMTP client **always** looks up the current list of
MX
hosts and IP addres
Hi!
i have many emails in the deferred queue that cannot be sent because the
destination resolved IP is no longer available.
is there anyway to force Postfix to look up again the list of mail exchangers
addresses for the destination host/domain and try to send them again???
Thanks!
Pedrete
: Cascade smtp delivery failure when one smtp fails
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 10:04 AM
>
On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:20 AM, Pedro David Marco
wrote:
>
> it seems
not a local performance issue (not virtual and very
powerful) but a remote pro
kills all smtp at a time?
Thanks!
David.
On Mon, 3/28/16, Wietse Venema wrote:
Subject: Re: Cascade smtp delivery failure when one smtp fails
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016, 5:21 PM
Pedro David Marco:
>
NOW
Mon, 3/28/16, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Subject: Re: Cascade smtp delivery failure when one smtp fails
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016, 4:33 PM
> On
Mar 28, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Pedro David Marco
wrote:
>
> It seems
to me that when qmgr wants to delive
Hello everybody!
it seems to me that when qmgr wants to deliver an email via smtp, qmgr
"assigns" it to a smtp process. As long as there are no
concurrency needs, the same smtp process is used repeatedly even for
diferent domain destinations.
Ok so far!
NOW, if one smtp process delivery tak
.
On Tue, 3/15/16, Wietse Venema wrote:
Subject: Re: Mails in active queue are never tried to be sent
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 8:48 PM
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks a lot Wietse...
>
> here they are:
Your P
By the way, Wietse...
nothing is running chrooted in master.cf
David.
On Tue, 3/15/16, Pedro David Marco wrote:
Subject: Re: Mails in active queue are never tried to be sent
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 7:50 PM
Thanks a lot Wietse...
here they are:
Mar 13 06:37:24 serverA postfix/qmgr[19283]: 80844160065:
from=, size=64276, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Mar 13 06:47:22 serverA postfix/error[17720]: 80844160065:
to=, relay=none, delay=235656, delays=235058/597/0/0.01,
dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (unknown mai
Hello everybody!!
i am trying to run a filter relay with Postfix and i have a doubt about active
queues i need help with, please...
Postfix documentation states clearly that:
"Messages in the active queue are ready to be sent (runnable), but are not
necessarily in the process of being sent
Makes sense..
Thanks a lot Noel, i owe you a beer! :-)
David.
On Thu, 3/3/16, Noel Jones wrote:
Subject: Re: main.cf and postfix reload
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016, 7:38 PM
On 3/3/2016 12:06 PM,
Pedro David
ect: Re: main.cf and postfix reload
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016, 6:29 PM
On 3/3/2016 11:07 AM,
Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Hello everybody...
>
> i have added a line
like this:
>
>
> recipient_bcc_maps =
hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_b
Hello everybody...
i have added a line like this:
recipient_bcc_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc
to my main,.cf file and postfix has suddenly started trying to use it!!
i did NOT execute a "postfix" reload" !!! is this normal??
Thanks!
David.
, 2016, 3:07 PM
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks a lot Wietse for your quick
answer...
>
> but
then... does this mean that i cannot use
smtp_fallback_relays
> in transport_map
file??
Perhaps you can
explain what problem you are trying to solve.
I.e explain the problem instea
...
To: "Postfix users"
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 12:25 PM
Pedro David Marco:
>
Hello everybody!!!
>
> I am trying to set smtp_fallback_relays
per domain in the transport map file.
>
> According to the documentation this is
possible:
>
Hello everybody!!!
I am trying to set smtp_fallback_relays per domain in the transport map file.
According to the documentation this is possible:
"In transport maps, specify "relay:nexthop..." as the right-hand side for
backup or primary MX domain entries."
i have tried:
domain.com smtp:[
80 matches
Mail list logo
