Hello,
After checks I noticed that I had "1.1.1.1" in my resolv.conf. And that
this DNS was specified in my dhcpcd.conf (certainly a mistake on my side).
I deleted this entry in dhcpcd.conf and restarted the service. And no
more "1.1.1.1" in resolv.conf.
I tested to send an email from anoth
On 1/1/23 12:33, Bill Cole wrote:
also, private IP ranges should be excluded from checking in DNS lists.
Yes, but non sequitur...
... as your server connects to 192.168.1.160, I assume that servers
sees your address to be from private range too.
Nope, the connecting address is shown in the
On 2023-01-01 at 13:01:18 UTC-0500 (Sun, 1 Jan 2023 19:01:18 +0100)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
is rumored to have said:
On 1/1/23 07:23, Forums wrote:
*/postfix/smtp[23430]: 4972423BAF: to=/**/,
relay=192.168.1.160[192.168.1.160]:25, delay=0.99,
delays=0.06/0.03/0.8/0.1, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced
On 1/1/23 07:23, Forums wrote:
*/postfix/smtp[23430]: 4972423BAF: to=/**/,
relay=192.168.1.160[192.168.1.160]:25, delay=0.99,
delays=0.06/0.03/0.8/0.1, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced (host
192.168.1.160[192.168.1.160] said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
Sender address [no-re...@mehl-family.fr] blo
On 1/1/23 07:23, Forums wrote:
*/postfix/smtp[23430]: 4972423BAF: to=/**/,
relay=192.168.1.160[192.168.1.160]:25, delay=0.99,
delays=0.06/0.03/0.8/0.1, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced (host
192.168.1.160[192.168.1.160] said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Sender
address [no-re...@mehl-family.fr] blo
On 2021-05-12 21:27, Noel Jones wrote:
Oh, and remove any permit_sasl_authenticated from the entries in
main.cf - assuming that no authenticated users should be using port
25.
and make sure main.cf does not have smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
common mistakes
On 5/12/2021 2:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/12/2021 2:11 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_aut
On 5/12/2021 2:11 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_client_restrict
Hello,
Thanks. Here's my master.cf submission entry:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
-o milte
On 5/12/2021 12:26 PM, David Mehler wrote:
Hello,
I'm running Postfix 3.6, I just upgraded. I do not know if this issue
occurred because of the upgrade or prior to it as I hadn't sent any
mail through this account lately.
I'm having an issue with spf, error log below, if I comment out check
p
Samuel Mutel:
> Hello,
>
> I encountered some issues with postfix when the /var/spool/postfix is on a
> glusterfs.
> The postfix queue is blocked suddenly and no more mail is sent.
>
> I don't know exactly what the issue is with GlusterFS ? Is-it a particular
> option to use when mounting the par
Samuel> I encountered some issues with postfix when the
Samuel> /var/spool/postfix is on a glusterfs. The postfix queue is
Samuel> blocked suddenly and no more mail is sent.
Please see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html and re-send your
problem with the right details.
Samuel> I don't kno
On 8/10/2012 12:06 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:50:26PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
Operationally a multi-instance system is easier to support. It
takes a small bit of effort to build, this is well worth it.
Maybe it's the way my brain works but what you are sugg
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:50:26PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >Operationally a multi-instance system is easier to support. It
> >takes a small bit of effort to build, this is well worth it.
>
> Maybe it's the way my brain works but what you are suggesting seems
> more complicated to me.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> Multiple instances also give you a more clear view of the state of
> the system with clearer log entries, separate queues for filtered
> and unfiltered mail, ...
This last item is nothing to sneeze at. It means you can see at a
On 8/9/2012 6:36 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
This is certainly not simpler then.
I would suggest that your simplicity metric is not the right one,
simplicity is about ease of understanding and ongoing maintenace,
more than abo
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> This is certainly not simpler then.
I would suggest that your simplicity metric is not the right one,
simplicity is about ease of understanding and ongoing maintenace,
more than about effort to set it up. It takes more effort
On 8/9/2012 6:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:49PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead
of two instances on the same machine?
No, I am recommending two instances per machine, one before the
filters, and
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:49PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead
> of two instances on the same machine?
No, I am recommending two instances per machine, one before the
filters, and one after
Separately, I am recommending t
So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead of two
instances on the same machine?
-Original Message-
From: Viktor Dukhovni
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Issue with Postfix Amavisd-new S/MIME encryption and DKIM
On Thu
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:48:19PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> The problem I'm having is this. It's my understanding that Amavis
> has to have an inject and re-inject port.
Certainly it listens for mail on the inject port, and forwards it
to the re-in(ject) port.
> In my case, I have cha
On 8/9/2012 2:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So what are you saying is, instead of having amavis reinject back to
Postfix on 10022, to have it inject directly to the s/mime gateway
on port 10025 and then the s/mime gateway rein
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> So what are you saying is, instead of having amavis reinject back to
> Postfix on 10022, to have it inject directly to the s/mime gateway
> on port 10025 and then the s/mime gateway reinject back to postfix
> on 10026? All the
On 8/9/2012 9:51 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:28:57AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
I have the following setup:
Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
integrated into the same system:
Email flows is as follows:
Postfix-
-->10021--->Am
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:28:57AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> I have the following setup:
>
> Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
> integrated into the same system:
>
> Email flows is as follows:
>
> Postfix-
> -->10021--->Amavis--->10022>Postfix
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:55:34PM -0700, mich...@kmaclub.com wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the sender isn't sending it out as
> kmaclub.com instead of localhost.localdomain.
The mail is sent that way by the application that creates the message,
the "myorigin" setting only applies to m
mich...@kmaclub.com:
> On 12/11/2009 12:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > mich...@kmaclub.com:
> >> Dec 11 12:03:19 server postfix/smtp[16589]: 762D67046F:
> >> to=, relay=none, delay=0.11,
> >> delays=0.02/0.01/0.07/0, dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Host or domain name
> >> not found. Name service error
On 12/11/2009 12:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
mich...@kmaclub.com:
Dec 11 12:03:19 server postfix/smtp[16589]: 762D67046F:
to=, relay=none, delay=0.11,
delays=0.02/0.01/0.07/0, dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Host or domain name
not found. Name service error for name=localhost.localdomain type=A:
Host
mich...@kmaclub.com:
> Dec 11 12:03:19 server postfix/smtp[16589]: 762D67046F:
> to=, relay=none, delay=0.11,
> delays=0.02/0.01/0.07/0, dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Host or domain name
> not found. Name service error for name=localhost.localdomain type=A:
> Host not found)
localhost.localdomain
29 matches
Mail list logo
