> On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:19 PM, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I was able to locate the files that pykolab was using to create this mayhem.
> Thank you so much Viktor!
You're welcome. Your penance is going to be to spend a bit
more time getting familiar with how to read your logs... :-)
--
>Are we bored yet... It looks like the software that's sending it into
Postfix over and over again is likely the "pykolab"
>thing on port 10026.
I was able to locate the files that pykolab was using to create this mayhem.
Thank you so much Viktor!
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:28:44PM -0800, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > There are no "Received:" headers here, are you sure you've posted *all* the
> > headers? All messages received by Postfix get a "Received" header
> > prepended. Where are they? However, we do see that the message went
> >
>There are no "Received:" headers here, are you sure you've posted *all* the
headers? All messages received by Postfix get a "Received" header
prepended. Where are they? However, we do see that the message went
through >Amavis, so ypu should have logs for that... and ideally for how it
got into
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:17:34PM -0800, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The message was created by something other than local submission, since it
> arrived via SMTP to 127.0.0.1.
> Here are the mail headers of the non-delivery email:
> ---
>
> Return-Path: <>
> Recei
> The message was created by something other than local submission, since it
arrived via SMTP to 127.0.0.1.
You are perhaps right. The message id appears to be same for this
problematic email (i.e. for every attempt to deliver this email to
x...@icloud.com the message id is 2f18001d6e499$48eeff40$
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:36:58PM -0800, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jan 12 17:56:26 mail postfix/smtpd[17788]: connect from xxx[127.0.0.1]
> Jan 12 17:56:26 mail postfix/smtpd[17788]: AED108DFA2: client=xxx[127.0.0.1]
> Jan 12 17:56:28 mail postfix/cleanup[17791]: AED108DFA2:
> message-id=<2f1
>The logs are rather a jumble, please collate the logs by queue-id, avoiding
mixing different messages together, and show all logs for any queue-id
that's relevant.
Here is the collated output from the script:
Jan 12 17:56:26 mail postfix/smtpd[17788]: connect from xxx[127.0.0.1]
Jan 12 17:56:26
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:18:33AM -0800, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here is what I see now with the same email going out again and again:
The logs are rather a jumble, please collate the logs by queue-id,
avoiding mixing different messages together, and show all logs for
any queue-id that's re
>Once your master.cf file is correct, it is no longer of much interest.
What matters now is logs and main.cf.
Here is what I see now with the same email going out again and again:
Jan 12 17:56:26 mail postfix/smtpd[17788]: connect from xxx[127.0.0.1]
Jan 12 17:56:26 mail postfix/smtpd[17788]: AE
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:59:36PM -0800, sckall...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I changed the last column in bounce line to bounce (it used to be
> discard) in master.cf.
Once your master.cf file is correct, it is no longer of much
interest. What matters now is logs and main.cf.
> Now I get NDRs every
ix.org On
Behalf Of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 8:56 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Crazy retries for bounced (and a small number of successful)
emails
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:48:25PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2021, at 21:49, Bob Jones wrote:
>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:48:25PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2021, at 21:49, Bob Jones wrote:
>
> > Also, what does all this mean essentially (in English)?
>
> The man page for master(5) is written in English and provides a standard
> answer. Is there something unclear there?
That's m
On 11 Jan 2021, at 21:49, Bob Jones wrote:
Also, what does all this mean essentially (in English)?
The man page for master(5) is written in English and provides a standard
answer. Is there something unclear there?
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and m
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:49:38AM +, Bob Jones wrote:
> You are absolutely right about the master.cf. The bounce line looks like the
> following:
>
> bounce unix - - n - 0
> discard
That is an invalid configuration. Nowhere is it documente
You are absolutely right about the master.cf. The bounce line looks like the
following:
bounce unix - - n - 0 discard
What is a good configuration for this? Also, what does all this mean
essentially (in English)?
On Monday, January 11, 2021
16 matches
Mail list logo
