On 2023-12-25 16:52, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Dmitry Katsubo via Postfix-users:
>> Dear Postfix team,
>>
>> In some rare cases when OS is CPU-loaded, the log is overflowed with the
>> following messages from Postfix, which fills up log space very quickly:
>>
>> 2023-12-24 18:04:41.
Dmitry Katsubo via Postfix-users:
> Dear Postfix team,
>
> In some rare cases when OS is CPU-loaded, the log is overflowed with the
> following messages from Postfix, which fills up log space very quickly:
>
> 2023-12-24 18:04:41.016972 postfix/tlsmgr[105819]: warning: end-of-input
> while read
Dear Postfix team,
In some rare cases when OS is CPU-loaded, the log is overflowed with the
following messages from Postfix, which fills up log space very quickly:
2023-12-24 18:04:41.016972 postfix/tlsmgr[105819]: warning: end-of-input while
reading request from tlsmgr socket: Application erro
Jim wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:41 (-0500), Kris Deugau wrote:
Jim wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:25 (-0500), Wietse Venema wrote:
Instead, use Maildir format with one message per file,
I thought about that once, but I decided I have too many e-mail
messages for that. (I don't
On 16.11.21 13:16, Jim wrote:
At first glance I wouldn't see that related to mbox vs. maildir, but
I've been surprised before.
if you only need to read header of each file (maildir), it should be faster
than read whole file (mbox).
yes, IMAP sometimes needs to read while mail file for its stru
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:41 (-0500), Kris Deugau wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:25 (-0500), Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Instead, use Maildir format with one message per file,
>> I thought about that once, but I decided I have too many e-mail
>> messages for that. (I don't want
Jim wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:25 (-0500), Wietse Venema wrote:
Finally, if you want to keep lots of mail around, don't keep
everything in one huge mailbox file.
I actually have a bunch of huge mailbox files ;-)
(Yeah, way too much email.)
Instead, use Maildir format with one message
> "Jim" == Jim writes:
>> Instead, use Maildir format with one message per file,
Jim> I thought about that once, but I decided I have too many e-mail
Jim> messages for that. (I don't want to run out of inodes, nor do I want to
Jim> make file accesses too slow because of the number of files
ree that changing it to "unlimited" opens one up to some risks.
And I can't make a definitive argument for any particular default
value. However, I still think that the limit of 5120 is far too
small in this day and age.
> TL;DR: If you want a better error message, stop u
s not needed
(hence "can't create ... file") if there is a local log that can
record the underlying problem details.
Wietse
> If you use Postfix itself for mailbox delivery, then the error
> message will be "File too large", one of the dozens of status
e,
> I fired up fetchmail and started downloading my email.
>
> This limit caused me to lose a certain number of email messages with
> the only hint being log messages containing this:
> ... status=bounced (can't create user output file)
TL;DR: If you want a better error me
king down these paths wasn't useful,
since permissions were not the problem.
In summary: would the powers that be consider improving that error
message so that it contains information about *why* it couldn't create
the user output file?
(In fact, I'd argue the error message is
Adrian van Bloois:
> Hi,
> Recently I was confronted with an error message like:
> Can't write to /var/spool/mail/BLADDDIBLA
> It took me another hour or so to find out why not.
> It would be helpful if the error message would read something like:
> Can't wite
Hi,
Recently I was confronted with an error message like:
Can't write to /var/spool/mail/BLADDDIBLA
It took me another hour or so to find out why not.
It would be helpful if the error message would read something like:
Can't wite to /var/spool/mail/BLADIBLA, mailboxsize exceeded
This
Thank you Noel, just need a nudge in the right direction =)
On 15.01.20 21:18, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/15/2020 2:08 PM, Esteban L wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I suspect this is equal parts a problem from Thunderbird, as it is
>> anything else. But, I am getting an error
On 1/15/2020 2:08 PM, Esteban L wrote:
Hello,
I suspect this is equal parts a problem from Thunderbird, as it is
anything else. But, I am getting an error message:
Unable to connect to your IMAP server. You may have exceeded the maximum
number of connections to this server. If so, use the
Esteban L:
> Hello,
>
> I suspect this is equal parts a problem from Thunderbird, as it is
> anything else. But, I am getting an error message:
>
>
> Unable to connect to your IMAP server. You may have exceeded the maximum
> number of connections to this server. If s
Hello,
I suspect this is equal parts a problem from Thunderbird, as it is
anything else. But, I am getting an error message:
Unable to connect to your IMAP server. You may have exceeded the maximum
number of connections to this server. If so, use the Advanced IMAP
server Settings dialogue to
t;YES"
>>>> apache24_http_accept_enable="YES"
>>>> apache24_enable="YES"
>>>> clamav_freshclam_enable="YES"
>>>> clamav_clamd_enable="YES"
>>>> maiad_enable="YES"
>>>> lookup
quot;YES"
>>> apache24_enable="YES"
>>> clamav_freshclam_enable="YES"
>>> clamav_clamd_enable="YES"
>>> maiad_enable="YES"
>>> lookup_domain_enable="YES"
>>> firewall_enable="YES"
&
t;
>> firewall_enable="YES"
>> firewall_script="/usr/local/etc/ipfw.rules"
>> firewall_logging="YES"
>> sshguard_enable="YES"
>> gateway_enable="YES"
>> natd_enable="YES"
>> natd_interface="em1"
&
n_enable="YES"
firewall_enable="YES"
firewall_script="/usr/local/etc/ipfw.rules"
firewall_logging="YES"
sshguard_enable="YES"
gateway_enable="YES"
natd_enable="YES"
natd_interface="em1"
natd_flags="-dynamic -m"
openvpn_e
YES"
natd_interface="em1"
natd_flags="-dynamic -m"
openvpn_enable="YES"
openvpn_configfile="/usr/local/etc/openvpn/server/server.conf"
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Pintér Tibor wrote:
>
> permission
>
> On 1/8/20 4:19 PM, Jason Hirsh
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Pintér Tibor wrote:
> permission
No.
> On 1/8/20 4:19 PM, Jason Hirsh wrote:
> > I am getting the following error message even though I am using
> > postfix and no longer start SENDMAIL is rc. <http://rc.com>conf
> >
&g
permission
On 1/8/20 4:19 PM, Jason Hirsh wrote:
I am getting the following error message even though I am using
postfix and no longer start SENDMAIL is rc. <http://rc.com>conf
sendmail[92919]: NOQUEUE: SYSERR(root): can not
chdir(/var/spool/clientmqueue/): Permission denied
Can
I am getting the following error message even though I am using postfix and
no longer start SENDMAIL is rc. <http://rc.com/>conf
sendmail[92919]: NOQUEUE: SYSERR(root): can not
chdir(/var/spool/clientmqueue/): Permission denied
Can anyone tell me what I am missing?
Hi,
Postfix is giving me a very unhelpful message of just "SASL plain
authentication failed:".
My guess is that you have set "log_path" in your dovecot.conf. If this is
the case, the other line of the message appears in the dovecot log file,
for instance:
mail.log: ... SASL PLAIN a
On 2019-11-17 17:21 GMT, Laura Smith wrote:
> unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/dovecot-auth {
> mode = 0660
> user = postfix
> group = postfix
> }
> smtpd_sasl_path = inet:127.0.0.1:7425
Don't these have to line up? Mine are
/etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-master.conf:
unix_li
Hi,
Postfix is giving me a very unhelpful message of just "SASL plain
authentication failed:".
So I'm clueless as to where to start troubleshooting.
Dovecot config is as follows (I have tried both tcp and socket, both return the
same vague error) :
ssl = no
service auth {
unix_listener /var
y of Connecticut, ITS, SSG, Server Systems
860-486-9075
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org On
Behalf Of Thilo Molitor
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 3:14 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Trying to understand error message in logs
...and check permissions on *all*
...and check permissions on *all* the directories in the path leading to the
lockfile for proper access (at least eXecute permission) and no conflicting
ACLs
(as viktor already wrote).
--tmolitor
Am Freitag, 11. Oktober 2019, 15:00:36 CEST schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> Reboot your system, and tr
Reboot your system, and try again.
> On Oct 11, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
>
> Hi, thanks for the tip about checking SELINUX. Sadly no change when testing
> openssl command with SELINUX off.
TLS has nothing to with this. The SMTP server is unable to
lock a file that is used to
: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:55 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Trying to understand error message in logs
Fazzina, Angelo:
> Hi, thank you for trying to help.
> I hope this answers your question.
>
> [root@mail6 pid]# pwd
> /var/spool/postfix/pid
> [root@mail6 pid]# ll
>
Fazzina, Angelo:
> Hi, thank you for trying to help.
> I hope this answers your question.
>
> [root@mail6 pid]# pwd
> /var/spool/postfix/pid
> [root@mail6 pid]# ll
> total 4
> -rw---. 1 root root 0 Oct 6 22:14 inet.smtp
...and so on...
Postfix daemons open lockfiles while running as root. I
, Angelo
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Trying to understand error message in logs
> Oct 11 11:16:08 mail6 postfix/submission/smtpd[18091]: fatal: open lock file
> pid/inet.submission: cannot open file: Permission denied
This would be the clue, and according to the docs, pid fil
> Oct 11 11:16:08 mail6 postfix/submission/smtpd[18091]: fatal: open lock file
> pid/inet.submission: cannot open file: Permission denied
This would be the clue, and according to the docs, pid files are written to the
queue directory by default.
> queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix
so - is th
Hi, I am building new server RHEL7 and Postfix 2.10
The log file is constantly outputting this...
Oct 11 11:15:08 mail6 postfix/master[3266]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd pid 18008 exit status 1
Oct 11 11:15:08 mail6 postfix/master[3266]: warning:
/usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd: bad
On 10.04.2017 18:33, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Mon, April 10, 2017 11:29, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> James B. Byrne:
>>> The issue seems to be some sort of time-out with the Amavis proxy.
>>> 66 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]: warning:
>>> timeout talking to proxy 127.0.0.1
James B. Byrne:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
>
> On Mon, April 10, 2017 11:29, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > James B. Byrne:
> >> 66 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]: warning:
> >> timeout talking to proxy 127.0.0.1:10024
> >> 67 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[
On Mon, April 10, 2017 11:29, Wietse Venema wrote:
> James B. Byrne:
>> 66 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]: warning:
>> timeout talking to proxy 127.0.0.1:10024
>> 67 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]:
>> proxy-reject:
>> END-OF-MESSAGE: 451 4.3.0 Error: que
James B. Byrne:
> 66 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]: warning:
> timeout talking to proxy 127.0.0.1:10024
> 67 Apr 8 10:50:27 inet08 postfix-p25/smtpd[18374]: proxy-reject:
> END-OF-MESSAGE: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=
The spam
We continue to receive messages addressed to Postmaster from our MX
host. All appear to be related to a single original transmission.
The issue seems to be some sort of time-out with the Amavis proxy.
Is there some way of determining exactly what is wrong with this
specific sender's message?
T
On 15/09/2013 11:08 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/15/2013 9:47 PM, John Allen wrote:
I am getting the following error message in my mail log:
Sep 15 22:22:17 bilbo postfix/smtpd[2319]: warning: Illegal address
syntax from localhost.lan[127.0.0.1] in RCPT command:
I think it is coming from
On 9/15/2013 9:47 PM, John Allen wrote:
> I am getting the following error message in my mail log:
>
> Sep 15 22:22:17 bilbo postfix/smtpd[2319]: warning: Illegal address
> syntax from localhost.lan[127.0.0.1] in RCPT command:
>
>
> I think it is coming from spamassassin,
I am getting the following error message in my mail log:
Sep 15 22:22:17 bilbo postfix/smtpd[2319]: warning: Illegal address
syntax from localhost.lan[127.0.0.1] in RCPT command:
I think it is coming from spamassassin, but I cannot find it in any of
the various spamassassin files.
TIA
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:08:26PM +0200, St?phane MERLE wrote:
> I use qshape a lot for the content of my alerts (I monitor the
> number of files and if the alert is triggered, I use qshape to have
> a nice summary in my email)
>
> BUT I cannot use it on the maildrop queue (maybee it is a wanted
On 18 Jul 2013, at 1:06, tswmmeejsdad . wrote:
Hi All,
Is there a way to change the NDR on postfix so that if we get an error
like
below where the MX record doesn't exist, customers get a NDR straight
away
instead of waiting the for the maximal_queue_lifetime which we have
set to
3 days?
m
tswmmeejsdad .:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a way to change the NDR on postfix so that if we get an error like
> below where the MX record doesn't exist, customers get a NDR straight away
> instead of waiting the for the maximal_queue_lifetime which we have set to
> 3 days?
>
> maillog.1:Jul 11 15:19:
Hi All,
Is there a way to change the NDR on postfix so that if we get an error like
below where the MX record doesn't exist, customers get a NDR straight away
instead of waiting the for the maximal_queue_lifetime which we have set to
3 days?
maillog.1:Jul 11 15:19:36 MyMailServer postfix/smtp[223
Peter:
> Also the log entry says this:
> > Dec 15 17:59:09 mailhost postfix/local[7486]: B4D124341:
> > to=, relay=local, delay=0, status=bounced (unknown
> > user: "foo-test")
>
> Wouldn't that be better if it says, '(unknown user: "foo")'? This in
Yes, that would make sense.
It looks like the
On 7/23/2012 7:24 AM, jan...@web.de wrote:
> Hello list,
> I'm new to this list hoping to receive some help. I posted my question on
> June 20 on the Zarafa community page, but did not get a feedback since, so I
> hope you tolerate my double posting. This is what I'm struggeling with:
>
> I'm q
Hello list,
I'm new to this list hoping to receive some help. I posted my question on June
20 on the Zarafa community page, but did not get a feedback since, so I hope
you tolerate my double posting. This is what I'm struggeling with:
I'm quit proud to say that I have sucessfully managed to ins
Am 17.07.2012 19:08, schrieb Alvin Wong:
> [Forgot to reply all, resend]
>
> No route to host means your IP cannot reach the remote IP, not port
> related.
that is not really true
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --destination-port 25 -j REJECT
--reject-with icmp-host-unreachable
i still
each the remote IP, not port
related. Check your IP/gateway/subnet mask settings, and try `nslookup
hotmail.com` and `traceroute hotmail.com`
On 2012-7-17 上午1:22, "Engin qwert" wrote:
From: eng...@hotmail.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: RE:
ot; wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: eng...@hotmail.com
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: RE: "no route to host" error message
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:33:40 +
>
> Sorry for asking everything but I want to make sure there isn't any
> rejection. I run th
From: eng...@hotmail.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: RE: "no route to host" error message
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:33:40 +
Sorry for asking everything but I want to make sure there isn't any rejection.
I run the command you told me. To my weak understan
BOAH DO NOT SWITCH TO TOP-POSTING
Am 13.07.2012 16:33, schrieb Engin qwert:
> --
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:25:54 +0200
>> From: h.rei...@thelounge.net
>> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Subject: Re: "no route to host" error message
>>
> From: h.rei...@thelounge.net
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: "no route to host" error message
>
>
>
> Am 13.07.2012 16:20, schrieb Engin qwert:
> > Hello and sorry for asking again.
> >
> > I telnet'ted the hotmail.com from both
are currently valid:
icmp-net-unreachable
icmp-host-unreachable
icmp-port-unreachable
icmp-proto-unreachable
icmp-net-prohibited
icmp-host-prohibited.
The default error message is to send a port-unreachable to the host.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
dport 25 -j DNAT
--to-destination 10.138.9.201:587
but none of them changed the port number in the error message I get> (connect
to mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.92.184]:25: No route to host) still It writes port 25
any clue?
From: eng...@hotmail.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: RE: &quo
machine itself cannot send
mail but could Pop3.
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:49:50 +0100
> From: dun...@presidium.org
> To: h.rei...@thelounge.net
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: "no route to host" error message
>
>
> On Fri
Am 13.07.2012 12:49, schrieb Duncan B.:
> You're not on a RedStation dedicated server are you, per-chance? The reason
> I ask, is that I encountered this
> exact error yesterday and investigating into it with a tcpdump, showed
> RedStation's gateway was filtering SMTP
> connections, forcing it
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
--
679D8120710 611 Fri Jul 13 12:34:05 some_sender@some_domain.tld
(connect to mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.92.184]:25: No route to host)
some_receip...@hotmail.com
--
thi
elounge.net
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: "no route to host" error message
>
>
>
> Am 13.07.2012 12:39, schrieb Engin qwert:
> > Hello, I set my postfix server using a ready made shell script. The Mail
> > server is working as excepted excep
en I run
> "mailq" command the error message is as shown below.
> --
> 679D8120710 611 Fri Jul 13 12:34:05 some_sender@some_domain.tld
>(connect to mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.92.184]:25: No route to host)
>
Hello, I set my postfix server using a ready made shell script. The Mail server
is working as excepted except the localhost it self. So the Mail Server can not
send mail using Icedove, Telnet nor PHP' mail () function. When I run "mailq"
command the error message is
Jeetu:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using postfix v2.8.6 with
> smtpd_reject_footer = Please see http://goo.gl/xxx for explanation of
..
> But if use MS outlook i don't get original error message
> i get a bounce back as
>
> The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:
>
Hi,
I'm using postfix v2.8.6 with
smtpd_reject_footer = Please see http://goo.gl/xxx for explanation of
the problem
Now the problem is i get the original error message like "User unknown
in virtual alias table" with Thunderbird and Roundcube with the above link.
But if u
On 06/14/2011 02:11 PM, kibirango moses wrote:
Contents of my /var/log/maillog
postfix/smtpd[7586]:> localhost[127.0.0.1]: 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN
postfix/smtpd[7586]:> localhost[127.0.0.1]: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
postfix/smtpd[7586]:> localhost[127.0.0.1]: 250-8BITMIME
postfix/smtpd[7586]:> lo
startup -- throttling
Do i still need to configure smtp auth and what pwcheck method should i use?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 14/06/2011 08:47, kibirango moses wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> I log on to squirrelmail web ok but when I try to send a me
On 14/06/2011 08:47, kibirango moses wrote:
Hello,
I log on to squirrelmail web ok but when I try to send a message I get
the following error.
ERROR: Message not sent. Server replied
How can i fix this Thanx in advance
way to little information.
please provide detailed logs.
thx
Tom
Hello,
I log on to squirrelmail web ok but when I try to send a message I get
the following error.
ERROR: Message not sent. Server replied
How can i fix this Thanx in advance
Zitat von "Barchfeld, Andreas" :
Hello,
for around 5% of our outgoing mails we get the message:
"lost connection with <> while sending end of data --
message may be sent more than once"
All mails go through our mail provider.
There are no dependencies on the size of the mail or the mail
Hello,
for around 5% of our outgoing mails we get the message:
"lost connection with <> while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once"
All mails go through our mail provider.
There are no dependencies on the size of the mail or the mail address. It takes
a few hours, then the
Werner Schalk:
> Dear all,
>
> I am running Postfix and Mailman on my server with MySQL as backend. It
> works like a charm (including mailman) but for one domain (customerA.com)
> the following error message is generating when the admin user maintains a
> list and an email
Dear all,
I am running Postfix and Mailman on my server with MySQL as backend. It
works like a charm (including mailman) but for one domain (customerA.com)
the following error message is generating when the admin user maintains a
list and an email is being generated (e.g. when adding/removing
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:00:09 +0200
Luigi Rosa wrote:
> What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
>
> If you set mailbox_size_limit to zero, what happens?
The configuration was partly copied from an old machine, this setting doesn't
make sense in this setup.
Changing th
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:03:23 -0400
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> global/mail_params.h
> 563:extern int var_mailbox_limit;
>
> Both of these parameters are signed integers as of Postfix 2.6.5 (and
> possibly later versions)
> Once you exceed 2,147,483,647; you get overflows.
This seems to
On 7/1/2010 1:39 PM, Roland Ramthun wrote:
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roland Ramthun said the following on 01/07/10 19:39:
> I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays
> messages to the primary.
What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
If you set mailbox_size_limi
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which should be sent to
m...@roland-ramthun.de.
This d
On 20 Dec 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 08:25:50PM +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> > OK, after looking at the output of the modified post-install I found
> > the cause of the error message (I think). I deleted postfix-doc and
> > reinstalled it
On 20 Dec 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Anthony Campbell put forth on 12/20/2009 2:25 PM:
>
> > OK, after looking at the output of the modified post-install I found the
> > cause of the error message (I think). I deleted postfix-doc and
> > reinstalled it - the error is n
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 08:25:50PM +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> OK, after looking at the output of the modified post-install I found the
> cause of the error message (I think). I deleted postfix-doc and
> reinstalled it - the error is no longer there.
What is "postfix-doc&qu
Anthony Campbell put forth on 12/20/2009 2:25 PM:
> OK, after looking at the output of the modified post-install I found the
> cause of the error message (I think). I deleted postfix-doc and
> reinstalled it - the error is no longer there.
And yet, you could have avoided this entire m
;set -x" commands).
>
> Then, you posted two files (post-install, postfix-files) that are
> not the files that produced that output.
>
> I am trying to recreate the conditions. I cannot do that when
> you keep sending false information.
>
> Wietse
OK, after looking at
Anthony Campbell:
> > > > > Attached.
> > > >
> > > > These are NOT the files that produced the pastebin output.
> > > >
> > > > Wietse
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't follow. "postconf daemon_directory" gives me /usr/lib/postfix,
> > > and those are the files that are there.
> >
> > Try re
Anthony Campbell:
> On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Anthony Campbell:
> > > On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > > > + set +x
> > > > > + test -r /usr/share/doc/postfix/html smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > > > > permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service
On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Anthony Campbell:
> > On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > > + set +x
> > > > + test -r /usr/share/doc/postfix/html smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > > > permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service
> > > > inet:127.0.0.1:10023/C
Anthony Campbell:
> On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > + set +x
> > > + test -r /usr/share/doc/postfix/html smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > > permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service
> > > inet:127.0.0.1:10023/CYRUS_README.html -a f '!=' d
> > > /usr/lib/postf
On 20 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > + set +x
> > + test -r /usr/share/doc/postfix/html smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service
> > inet:127.0.0.1:10023/CYRUS_README.html -a f '!=' d
> > /usr/lib/postfix/post-install: line 494: tes
> + set +x
> + test -r /usr/share/doc/postfix/html smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination, check_policy_service
> inet:127.0.0.1:10023/CYRUS_README.html -a f '!=' d
> /usr/lib/postfix/post-install: line 494: test: too many arguments
Can you post or upload t
On 19 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Anthony Campbell:
> > On 19 Dec 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps your shell's "test" built-in command is broken on the system in
> > > question. Add "set -x" just above the test, to see what command is
> > > actually executed.
> > >
> > >
Anthony Campbell:
> On 19 Dec 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps your shell's "test" built-in command is broken on the system in
> > question. Add "set -x" just above the test, to see what command is
> > actually executed.
> >
> > add-> set -x
> > test -r ...
> > a
Anthony Campbell:
> On 19 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Anthony Campbell:
> > > > Try:
> > > >
> > > > test -r "$path"
> > > >
> > > > instead of:
> > > >
> > > > test -r $path
> > > >
> > > > does that fix it? If it does, please respond, and attach a compressed
> > > > cop
On 19 Dec 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Anthony Campbell:
> > > Try:
> > >
> > > test -r "$path"
> > >
> > > instead of:
> > >
> > > test -r $path
> > >
> > > does that fix it? If it does, please respond, and attach a compressed
> > > copy of your postfix-files file. Make sure you are using
On 19 Dec 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> Perhaps your shell's "test" built-in command is broken on the system in
> question. Add "set -x" just above the test, to see what command is
> actually executed.
>
> add-> set -x
> test -r ...
> add-> set +x
>
> --
Yes, i
Anthony Campbell:
> > Try:
> >
> > test -r "$path"
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > test -r $path
> >
> > does that fix it? If it does, please respond, and attach a compressed
> > copy of your postfix-files file. Make sure you are using the right
> > postfix-files, with recent releases this
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:57:59AM +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > Try:
> >
> > test -r "$path"
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > test -r $path
> >
> > does that fix it? If it does, please respond, and attach a compressed
> > copy of your postfix-files file. Make sure you are using the ri
> Try:
>
> test -r "$path"
>
> instead of:
>
> test -r $path
>
> does that fix it? If it does, please respond, and attach a compressed
> copy of your postfix-files file. Make sure you are using the right
> postfix-files, with recent releases this is no longer in /etc/postfix,
> loo
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
