Paul Lemmons:
> I am getting the following message in my syslog exactly every 30
> seconds. Everything is working but words like "Fatal" and "Input/output
> error" cause me an inordinate amount of angst.
>
> postfix/postqueue[]: fatal: output write error: Input/output error
Wietse:
> A write(2) o
Thank you for your reply.
These messages are being seen in in the /var/log/mail.log on a 30 second
period. Nothing is being done (by me) outside of the normal processing of
messages by postfix that would be causing these. No external process is piping
anything to another program. This is a very
Paul Lemmons via Postfix-users:
> I am getting the following message in my syslog exactly every 30
> seconds. Everything is working but words like "Fatal" and "Input/output
> error" cause me an inordinate amount of angst.
>
> postfix/postqueue[]: fatal: output write error: Input/output error
A wr
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...
> > flushing the queue with 'postqu
You got me!!! I have only been running corporate e-mail on Postfix for a
couple of decades and still learning the basics.
It does not require a lot of expertise until something goes wrong!
I knew that you or Wietse or one of the other experts would correct my
guesses.
You guys give great supp
Bill Cole:
> On 26 Oct 2020, at 6:07, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> Can you be more specific about "lon
On 26 Oct 2020, at 6:07, Pedro David Marco wrote:
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...
Can you be more specific about "long"?
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsul
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:07:25AM +, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Flushing the queue with 'postqueue -f' normally produces instant
> flush but sometimes it takes some time to do it... it always works!
It never produces "instant flush", what it does is reset the queue
manager's delay timer for
On 10/26/2020 12:46 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
I am not sure of the following:
- how many time Postfix retries before putting something in the queue?
- how often Postfix goes through the queue retrying old failed sends?
- what make Postfix give up retrying automatically?
Documentation:
http:/
I came through the ARPAnet-DECnet and 2780/3780 stream.
On 2020-10-26 1:49 p.m., Peter Blair wrote:
At 26 October, 2020 Ron Wheeler wrote:
If you are very old, you will remember when networking was young and e-mail
was sent over dial-up connections that connected only once or twice a day.
Th
At 26 October, 2020 Ron Wheeler wrote:
> If you are very old, you will remember when networking was young and e-mail
> was sent over dial-up connections that connected only once or twice a day.
> The email system has to deal with the historical world where connections
> where not "always on" so a
I think that you should only see the attempt as a successful send. Are
you logging successful sends?
I would not expect any error as long as the delay is not so long that
Postfix decides that it is never going to go.
As long as the attempt succeeds within the timeout delay, Postfix
considers i
>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
Could be just that the other end was busy receiving someone else's mail.
Takes 2 to tango!
No big attachments?
On 2020-10-26 12:22 p.m., Pedro David Marco wrote:
>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.
>F
>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
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 time.
A broken or overloaded remote could still be slow.
Ron
On 2020-10-26 6:07 a.m
Pedro David Marco:
> 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
:-)
On 11/14/18 11:25 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
Your kernel's UNIX-domain stack is messed up, or some 'security'
system is interfering with proper operation.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24
Well. I've disconnected spamskurwysyn (I m
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Marek Kozlowski
> wrote:
>
>>> Your kernel's UNIX-domain stack is messed up, or some 'security'
>>> system is interfering with proper operation.
>>>
>>> https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24
>>
>> Well. I've disconnected spamskurwysyn (I mean: spamassassin) - in m
On 11/14/18 10:01 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
:-)
On 11/14/18 8:40 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Marek Kozlowski:
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisa?(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf
Marek Kozlowski:
> Well. I've disconnected spamskurwysyn (I mean: spamassassin) - in master.cf:
>
> smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
> # -o content_filter=spamassassin
>-o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
>
> And now it works perfect (except: with no
:-)
On 11/14/18 8:40 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Marek Kozlowski:
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisa?(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
shou
Marek Kozlowski:
> W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisa?(a):
> >> 2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
> >> read
> >> timeout for service public/pickup
> >
> > What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
> > should say 'unix' not 'fif
:-)
A new type of warning in logs found:
[warning,mail]postfix/master[458]: warning: master_wakeup_timer_event:
service pickup(public/pickup): Resource temporarily un
available
May I ask for some explanation?
Best regards,
Marek
W dniu 2018-11-14 19:29, Wietse Venema napisał(a):
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event:
read
timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
should say 'unix' not 'fifo'. Postfix stopped using the 'fifo' years
> 2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event: read
> timeout for service public/pickup
What does the master.cf entry for the pickup service look like? It
should say 'unix' not 'fifo'. Postfix stopped using the 'fifo' years
ago.
Wietse
20120924
...
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Marek Kozlowski
> wrote:
>
> Maybe there is some cached runtime information for postfix or some broken
> database?
No. The communications sockets don't any such "memory". If they're dropping
packets,
your kernel is fubared, and you need a more reliable O/S.
W dniu 2018-11-14 17:33, Viktor Dukhovni napisał(a):
On Nov 14, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Marek Kozlowski
wrote:
The ONLY entries matching include:
1. [warning,mail]postfix/postqueue[13925]: warning: unix_trigger:
write to public/qmgr: Broken pipe
2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: uni
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Marek Kozlowski
> wrote:
>
> The ONLY entries matching include:
>
> 1. [warning,mail]postfix/postqueue[13925]: warning: unix_trigger: write to
> public/qmgr: Broken pipe
> 2. [warning,mail]postfix/master[9522]: warning: unix_trigger_event: read
> timeout for
W dniu 2018-11-14 16:07, Wietse Venema napisał(a):
A problem report without looking at the logs?
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
DO NOT turn on debug logging unless asked to do so.
Wietser
The ONLY entries matching include:
1. [warning,mail]postfix/postqueue[13925]:
A problem report without looking at the logs?
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
DO NOT turn on debug logging unless asked to do so.
Wietser
@lbutlr:
> I don't see a flag to make post queue -p or mailq to return silently if the
> queue is empty.
>
> Is there a way, or should I just alias/use
>
> # postqueue -p | egrep -v "^Mail queue is empty"
This is part of the Sendmail-compatibility interface. Until now,
Postfix does not have a
Andrew Bourgeois:
> > As documented, "postqueue -i" pushes one message to the incoming
> > queue, while "postqueue -f" triggers delivery of all deferred mail.
>
> It's not clearly stated in the man pages of postqueue and flush. But since
-i queue_id
Schedule immediate delivery of deferred
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 06:11:20PM +0100, Andrew Bourgeois wrote:
> > > My question is: why is that?
> >
> > Because of the difference: one message, instead of all.
>
> So it's done because of performance reasons?
No, for protocol reasons. The external queue manager protocol
by which pickup, cle
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Andrew Bourgeois:
> > Hello
> >
> > stress tests indicate that Postfix 2.8.8 behaves differently when using
> > "postqueue -i" compared to "postqueue -f" when it comes to handling
> > deferred e-mail.
>
> As documented, "postqueue -i" pushes
Andrew Bourgeois:
> Hello
>
> stress tests indicate that Postfix 2.8.8 behaves differently when using
> "postqueue -i" compared to "postqueue -f" when it comes to handling
> deferred e-mail.
As documented, "postqueue -i" pushes one message to the incoming
queue, while "postqueue -f" triggers deli
On Thursday 24 November 2011 14:20:16 peng...@sepserver.net wrote:
> I have some messages in queue. I have enumerated the queue with
> postqueue -p command and see that many messages are not delivered
> because my server is on a "greylist". How come no indication of
> this greylisting is in mail.lo
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:03:17 +, wrote:
> root@pinkie:/var/log# postqueue -p
> -Queue ID- --Size-- Arrival Time -Sender/Recipient---
> 808AD1858E* 459339 Wed Nov 23 17:20:37 i...@dpsdirect.us
> @brookeagent.com
>
> 2BDBF18581* 459
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:03:37 +0300, "Ejaz" wrote:
> Postqueue -p command taking so long time to execute, start and
> stopping the postfix also the same, in the meanwhile I checked
> server performance is quite normal, no load
Is yours /etc/hosts sane?
M.
Ejaz:
> Hello,
>
> Postqueue -p command taking so long time to execute, start and stopping the
> postfix also the same, in the meanwhile I checked server performance is
> quite normal, no load
>
> Is there any clue
You need to provide more specific information, because it actually
matters what en
Hi,
>
> What's wrong with postqueue -f?
>
>
> config_directory = /usr/local/etc/postfix
>
What, if you specify
postqueue -c /usr/local/etc/postfix -f
Christian
Jack Raats:
> I was the one which gave postqueue -f (as root on FreeBSD 7.4-PRERELEASE)
> Normally It tries to flush the queue, trying to deliver the mail in the
> queue.
>
> At this moment nothing happend. I got the fatal usage logging in my logfile.
>
> So again. Is this a bug or is there some
Hi,
Den 01. jan. 2011 22:14, skrev Jack Raats:
Reposting, because it looks like it didn't reached the mailinglist.
It did.
I'm sorry. Excuse me!
What's wrong with postqueue -f?
Jan 1 06:18:00 orac postfix/postqueue[71142]: fatal: usage: postqueue -f
|
postqueue -i queueid | postqueue -
Den 01. jan. 2011 22:14, skrev Jack Raats:
Reposting, because it looks like it didn't reached the mailinglist.
It did.
Hi eryone,
Happy new year!
What's wrong with postqueue -f?
Jan 1 06:18:00 orac postfix/postqueue[71142]: fatal: usage: postqueue -f |
postqueue -i queueid | postqueue -p |
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:04:35AM +0200, Rok Poto??nik wrote:
>> The default summary is for the incoming and active queues. An explicit
>> list of queue names can be given on the command line. Non-absolute queue
>> names are interpreted relative to the Postfix queue directory. Use
>> to specify
On 27.10.2010 19:30, Mark Martinec wrote:
Rok Potočnik writes:
and last but not least... postqueue -p and wish of printing out sender's
ip address:
I really miss a possibility of postqueue to print out client's IP
address, sometimes it would really help me out debugging some problems
and even th
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 07:30:07PM +0200, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Rok Poto??nik writes:
> > and last but not least... postqueue -p and wish of printing out sender's
> > ip address:
> > I really miss a possibility of postqueue to print out client's IP
> > address, sometimes it would really help me
On 26.10.2010 22:35, Victor Duchovni wrote:
ISP mail servers usually accept a large number of messages that most
company's mail servers reject (e.g. only accept only email sent from the
hosted domain). Unfortunately we can only limit the email till one point,
after that we must somehow work aroun
Zitat von Rok Potočnik :
On 26.10.2010 22:08, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Then you're probably accepting way too much mail that you shouldn't, as
the other guy said.
Even with volumes exceeding 100K per day, I don't have deferred messages.
ISP mail servers usually accept a large number of messages
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:25:32PM +0200, Rok Poto??nik wrote:
> On 26.10.2010 22:08, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>> Then you're probably accepting way too much mail that you shouldn't, as
>> the other guy said.
>> Even with volumes exceeding 100K per day, I don't have deferred messages.
>
> ISP mail se
On 26.10.2010 22:08, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Then you're probably accepting way too much mail that you shouldn't, as
the other guy said.
Even with volumes exceeding 100K per day, I don't have deferred messages.
ISP mail servers usually accept a large number of messages that most
company's mail s
On 10/26/2010 09:37 PM, Rok Potočnik wrote:
On 26.10.2010 21:08, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 10/26/2010 09:05 PM, Rok Potočnik wrote:
First of all, I'm quite satisfied with Postfix and some other
opensource products which are keeping my life better and I owe a big
*THANK YOU* to all developers etc
On 26.10.2010 21:12, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Rok Potočnik :
First of all, I'm quite satisfied with Postfix and some other
opensource products which are keeping my life better and I owe a big
*THANK YOU* to all developers etc...
Now on to my questions... I'm using Postfix MTA on so
On 26.10.2010 21:08, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 10/26/2010 09:05 PM, Rok Potočnik wrote:
First of all, I'm quite satisfied with Postfix and some other
opensource products which are keeping my life better and I owe a big
*THANK YOU* to all developers etc...
Now on to my questions... I'm using Post
Zitat von Rok Potočnik :
First of all, I'm quite satisfied with Postfix and some other
opensource products which are keeping my life better and I owe a big
*THANK YOU* to all developers etc...
Now on to my questions... I'm using Postfix MTA on some email
gateways and even though I belive
On 10/26/2010 09:05 PM, Rok Potočnik wrote:
First of all, I'm quite satisfied with Postfix and some other
opensource products which are keeping my life better and I owe a big
*THANK YOU* to all developers etc...
Now on to my questions... I'm using Postfix MTA on some email gateways
and even t
Dennis wrote:
Hey guys,
I am writing a simple python parser for the "postqueue -p" output. In
the man page, it states the below for the "-p" switch:
The queue ID string is followed by an optional status
character:
* The message is in the active
57 matches
Mail list logo
