On Sunday, December 11, 2016 03:45:26 PM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Scott Kitterman
> > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. That makes it clear. I probably would have missed the compressed
> > man page detail.
> You'll you're done when (as root):
>
> 1. "postfix check" l
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Thanks. That makes it clear. I probably would have missed the compressed
> man page detail.
You'll you're done when (as root):
1. "postfix check" logs no errors.
"postfix set-permissions" logs no errors.
On December 11, 2016 1:24:22 PM EST, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>>
>> As I recall from our previous discussions on the topic (and what I
>read in the
>> documentation), since we split the various dynamic map types into
>their own
>> bin
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> As I recall from our previous discussions on the topic (and what I read in
> the
> documentation), since we split the various dynamic map types into their own
> binary packages, we need to make sure that the basic postfix package does
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 12:50:05 AM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 2016, at 12:34 AM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> >> Instead of partly disabling DANE support, it seems to make more
> >> sense to switch to unbound or BIND.
> >
> > I agree. I think most users don't understand the disti
> On Dec 7, 2016, at 12:34 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> Instead of partly disabling DANE support, it seems to make more
>> sense to switch to unbound or BIND.
>
> I agree. I think most users don't understand the distinction between the
> parts of the archive.
Let's hope the word gets out
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 02:08:24 AM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:47:27PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > I'm shocked that they have done such a thing. I
> > > wonder if a post to their mailing list would get the attention of the
> > > right person.
> >
> > There
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:47:27PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I'm shocked that they have done such a thing. I
> > wonder if a post to their mailing list would get the attention of the
> > right person.
>
> There is almost certainly not a right person. PDNS is in the Universe
> section
>
On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 04:56:58 PM MRob wrote:
> On 2016-12-06 16:23, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> > Having removed ipv6 from the question, I get the error I quoted above
> >> > even for domains that do resolve using "dig" fro
On 2016-12-06 17:14, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:56:58PM -0800, MRob wrote:
> To be fair to the good folks at PowerDNS, the software in question
> was an alpha version, that Ubuntu should probably not have shipped
> in a prod release. I don't know of any similar issues in
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:56:58PM -0800, MRob wrote:
> > To be fair to the good folks at PowerDNS, the software in question
> > was an alpha version, that Ubuntu should probably not have shipped
> > in a prod release. I don't know of any similar issues in actual
> > releases of PowerDNS.
>
> Th
On 2016-12-06 16:23, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Having removed ipv6 from the question, I get the error I quoted above
> even for domains that do resolve using "dig" from the CLI of the same
> host. Why would there be that kind of disc
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Having removed ipv6 from the question, I get the error I quoted above
> > even for domains that do resolve using "dig" from the CLI of the same
> > host. Why would there be that kind of discrepancy?
>
> Not at all, just some int
MRob:
> Having removed ipv6 from the question, I get the error I quoted above
> even for domains that do resolve using "dig" from the CLI of the same
> host. Why would there be that kind of discrepancy?
Not at all, just some intermediate resolver that messes up as I
suggested in my first reply.
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:02:21PM -0800, MRob wrote:
> > This could a messed-up DNS resolver anywhere in the path, including
> > a bad resolv.conf file under /var/spool/postfix/etc, or some
> > 'security' filter that breaks connectivity to some DNS server.
>
> Victor suggested in a mail prior to
Victor, Wietse,
On 2016-12-06 11:16, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
MRob:
Last few days, I'm seeing large amount of failures in a log file for
domains using protection.outlook.com:
to=, relay=none, delay=13190,
delays=13187/0.08/2.2/0,
dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. N
> On Dec 6, 2016, at 1:44 PM, MRob wrote:
>
> Last few days, I'm seeing large amount of failures in a log file for domains
> using protection.outlook.com:
>
> to=, relay=none, delay=13190, delays=13187/0.08/2.2/0,
> dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. Name service error
MRob:
> Last few days, I'm seeing large amount of failures in a log file for
> domains using protection.outlook.com:
>
> to=, relay=none, delay=13190, delays=13187/0.08/2.2/0,
> dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. Name service
> error for name=example-com.mail.protection.
18 matches
Mail list logo
