Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:29 AM, @lbutlr wrote: > > Does it occur to you that there might possibly be a reason the default is > 18000 and that reducing it by a couple of orders of magnitude is not > something you should just do without knowing the ramifications? > > Do you even know what the s

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On 14 Jul 2017, at 06:40, Tom Hudson wrote: > Just to let you know, the problem appears to have been caused by the > "daemon_timeout" being set far too low during our initial configuration. I > know the default in postfix is 18000s but ours had been set to 60s! > Increasing this to 600s appears to

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Tom Hudson wrote: > > Thank you for all of your help so far with this issue. > > Just to let you know, the problem appears to have been caused by the > "daemon_timeout" being set far too low during our initial configuration. I > know the default in postfix is 1800

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Hi, Thank you for all of your help so far with this issue. Just to let you know, the problem appears to have been caused by the "daemon_timeout" being set far too low during our initial configuration. I know the default in postfix is 18000s but ours had been set to 60s! Increasing this to 600s ap

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Viktor Dukhovni: > There's your problem. Your SMTP delivery agent is blocked waiting > for something that never happens, until an interrupt after a 5 hour > watchdog timer. This suggests a buggy operating system, perhaps > a virtual machine that loses timer events, or some other O/S bug. > > Jul

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On 13 July 2017 at 19:14, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:02:09PM +0100, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > On 13 July 2017 at 13:56, Daniel Caulfield > > wrote: > > > > > How would we go about getting you a copy of the 'postfix/smtpd' > > > logs? where would they be or how do we switch tha

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 08:23:26AM -0700, Daniel Caulfield wrote: > Apologies but I tried to post the log in the body but the forum is > responding [Spam Detector] Message contains common spam words. and won't let > me post it so the contents are in teh attached txt file. > > Thanks > Danny MailL

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:02:09PM +0100, Dominic Raferd wrote: > On 13 July 2017 at 13:56, Daniel Caulfield > wrote: > > > How would we go about getting you a copy of the 'postfix/smtpd' > > logs? where would they be or how do we switch that on? > > They will be in the same place, you can ext

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Hi Viktor, Apologies but I tried to post the log in the body but the forum is responding [Spam Detector] Message contains common spam words. and won't let me post it so the contents are in teh attached txt file. Thanks Danny MailLog.txt

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:38:51PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > No, that's not the logging of the actual problem, that is logging > from the "postfix/smtp" (not "postfix/smtpd") process that crashed > while attempting delivery, and "postfix/master" reporting an abnormal > exit from an "smtp" pr

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On 13 July 2017 at 14:22, Daniel Caulfield wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the log attached, is this what you are requesting? (we have had > to split to multiple files but there are in numarical order) > smtpd1.log > smtpd2.log

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Hi, Please find the log attached, is this what you are requesting? (we have had to split to multiple files but there are in numarical order) smtpd1.log smtpd2.log smtpd3.

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On 13 July 2017 at 13:56, Daniel Caulfield wrote: > Hi Viktor, > > I am working on this issue with Tom, apologies if we seem to be struggling > with something simple here but the only log file we have is in > /var/log/maillog. Even if we change the log settings to more verbose we > don't seem to

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Hi Viktor, I am working on this issue with Tom, apologies if we seem to be struggling with something simple here but the only log file we have is in /var/log/maillog. Even if we change the log settings to more verbose we don't seem to generate any other logs. How would we go about getting you a

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:55:29AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > That is not how Postfix generally works. No further information is possible > without the relevant logs, and any relevant transport table and master.cf > settings. > > [...] > > "unknown mail transport error" is a serious proble

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Hi Viktor, Thanks for getting back to me. I've attached our master.cf file to this message. The only edits I have made is to replace references to my company's IP addresses and domain names. tomhudson_masterconfig.txt

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:08:34AM -0700, Tom Hudson wrote: > Firstly, apologies if I haven't included all of the relevant > information in this initial post. Please let me know if I have > missed anything. Full "postconf -nf ; postconf -Mf" and complete non-verbose logging of a single email wh

Re: Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Tom Hudson wrote: > > Firstly, apologies if I haven't included all of the relevant information in > this initial post. Please let me know if I have missed anything. > > I am currently running Postfix 3.2.0 and have a problem relating to MX > records and defered m

Postfix 3.2.0 - Sending to all MX records

Firstly, apologies if I haven't included all of the relevant information in this initial post. Please let me know if I have missed anything. I am currently running Postfix 3.2.0 and have a problem relating to MX records and defered messages. What I have identified is, if a domain our server is try