> On Oct 24, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Tobi wrote:
>
> The only other places in my logs where I see the client IP are those lines
>
> Oct 24 09:48:28 myhost postfix/smtpd[16393]: connect from unknown[REDACTED]
> Oct 24 09:48:29 myhost postfix/smtpd[16393]: disconnect from
> unknown[REDACTED]
> Oct 24
Hi
I use a pre-queue content filter via postfix proxy feature. Works fine :-)
My "problem" is the logmessage that is generated into maillog upon
reject of this pre-queue filter which currently looks like this:
Oct 24 09:48:29 myhost postfix/smtpd[16393]: proxy-reject:
END-OF-MESSAGE: 550 test.exe
On 3/23/2017 4:25 PM, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>> Is this message still in the postfix queue or did it eventually get
>> delivered?
>
> II haven’t been able to establish this yet. It’s hard to debug with
> Apple’s logging issues. Th spool directory is good as empty (only
> one entry in defer/deferred.
Actually, those errors were unrelated. Looking at the time in amavisd log that
corresponds with a deferred message in the smtp log:
Mar 22 15:09:08 Dumbledore.local
/Applications/Server.app/Contents/ServerRoot/usr/bin/amavisd[279]: sd_notify
(no socket): STATUS=Starting child process(es), ready
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 21:59, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>
>>
>> maybe up the loglevel, or use tcpdump to capture some packets and
>> see if the postfix logs are correct.
>>
>
> Increasing the postfix log level is unlikely to give any further
> useful information -- the other end dropped the connecti
>
> maybe up the loglevel, or use tcpdump to capture some packets and
> see if the postfix logs are correct.
>
Increasing the postfix log level is unlikely to give any further
useful information -- the other end dropped the connection.
Check the amavisd logs at this same time. If that doesn't
, Angelo
Cc: Postfix users
Subject: Re: What does this log message mean?
On 23 Mar 2017, at 20:16, Fazzina, Angelo
mailto:angelo.fazz...@uconn.edu>> wrote:
Hi,
I think this is how you read the delay.
"delays=a/b/c/d" where a=time before queue manager, including message
transmission;
> -Angelo Fazzina
> Operating Systems Programmer / Analyst
> University of Connecticut, UITS, SSG, Server Systems
> 860-486-9075
>
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Gerben Wierda
> Sent: Thursday, Ma
ject: What does this log message mean?
I’m using the postfix that is part of mac OS Sierra with Server 5.2. Apple has
kind of damaged the logging system, so getting logs from sptmd/smtp has become
a lot more difficult.
I’ve now found a way to get the logs. While investigating something else, I’v
I’m using the postfix that is part of mac OS Sierra with Server 5.2. Apple has
kind of damaged the logging system, so getting logs from sptmd/smtp has become
a lot more difficult.
I’ve now found a way to get the logs. While investigating something else, I’ve
noticed entries like these in the lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27.09.2014 05:30, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> However, more configurable logging is planned for future Postfix
> versions
I guess it's not so much about configuration. It would be nice if
there simply was no output in logging which doesn't make as muc
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:49:51AM +0200, Karl-Philipp wrote:
> Sep 27 01:14:26 diskstation postfix/smtpd[24461]: disconnect from
> unknown[192.168.178.23]
This message logs the end of an SMTP connection, everything else
of interest was logged earlier as it happened during the lifetime
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi together,
During the setup of a postfix system on Debian I found log message in
the format of
Sep 27 01:14:26 diskstation postfix/smtpd[24461]: disconnect from
unknown[192.168.178.23]
or even worse
timeout after UNKNOWN from unknown
John Fawcett:
> I noticed this minor typo in a log message in util/vstring_vstream.c in
> function vstring_get_null_bound
>
> I guess
>
> if (bound <= 0)
> msg_panic("vstring_get_nonl_bound: invalid bound %ld", (long)
> bound);
&
I noticed this minor typo in a log message in util/vstring_vstream.c in
function vstring_get_null_bound
I guess
if (bound <= 0)
msg_panic("vstring_get_nonl_bound: invalid bound %ld", (long)
bound);
should be
if (bound <= 0)
msg_panic("vstring_ge
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:11:26 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> James Seymour:
> > > The TCP stack sends an outbound ACK|RST because it received
> > > *something* on port 25. Your firewall should not have passed that.
> >
> > Should not have passed it *incoming*, do you mean?
>
> Indeed (assumi
James Seymour:
> > The TCP stack sends an outbound ACK|RST because it received
> > *something* on port 25. Your firewall should not have passed that.
>
> Should not have passed it *incoming*, do you mean?
Indeed (assuming that ipfilter actually tracks state in the exact
same way as the TCP stack,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:24:38 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip]
>
> There are two stateful engines: the TCP stack and ipfilter.
*nodding*
>
> With "keep state", ipfilter "remembers" the connection and lets
> packets pass, up to the point that ipfilter believes the connection
> no longer
James Seymour:
> > >-AR means the ACK and RST flags are set.
> > > My question is why is your firewall blocking outbound ACK|RST?
> >
> > I'm using basically "canned" rulesets in my ipfilter setup. That is
> > the default deny at the end of bge1's output filters.
> >
> >
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:57:12 -0500
Jim Seymour wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:03:59 -0500 (EST)
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Wietse Venema:
> > > > bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.201.168,36545 PR
> > > > tcp len 20 40 -AR OUT
> > >
> > > Why are you blocking outbound TCP RST?
[snip]
>
> >
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:03:59 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > > bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.201.168,36545 PR
> > > tcp len 20 40 -AR OUT
> >
> > Why are you blocking outbound TCP RST?
>
> According to ipmon(8),
The web is rotting my brain. I never thought to actually ch
Wietse Venema:
> > bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.201.168,36545 PR tcp len
> > 20 40 -AR OUT
>
> Why are you blocking outbound TCP RST?
According to ipmon(8), -AR means the ACK and RST flags are set.
My question is why is your firewall blocking outbound ACK|RST?
Wietse
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:41:56 -0500
Sahil Tandon wrote:
[snip]
>
> Postfix sends a 450 response because your DNS server cannot find the
> client's reverse hostname; following that, the client foolishly
> sends DATA, to which Postfix responds with a 554. Finally, instead
> of gracefully QUITing,
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:15:35 -0500
Jim Seymour wrote:
> Each of them occurs two-or-more
> times, involving the same contacting IP.
Clarification: That was to say that, when it occurs multiple times
in a row, it's the same IP trying over-and-over again in each set of
retries. A total of 17 unique
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:11:00 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 12.12.2011 01:04, schrieb Jim Seymour:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:14:08 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> why do you use "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname" if you do
> >> not like the results of it?
> >
>
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:35:23 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip]
>
> Why are you blocking outbound TCP RST?
I am not, to the best of my knowledge.
There is a TCP control traffic rate limit in the border router, there
as a DoS prevention tactic, but that's it.
This doesn't happen all the t
Am 12.12.2011 01:04, schrieb Jim Seymour:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:14:08 +0100
> Reindl Harald wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> why do you use "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname" if you do
>> not like the results of it?
>
> Why do you answer the question when you obviously have not read it?
> (Or at
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:14:08 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
[snip]
>
> why do you use "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname" if you do
> not like the results of it?
Why do you answer the question when you obviously have not read it?
(Or at least apparently not understood it.)
Regards,
Jim
--
Not
On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 18:10:34 -0500, Jim Seymour wrote:
> Looking in /var/log/maillog...
>
> Dec 11 17:47:08 myhost postfix/smtpd[48290]: connect from
> unknown[89.73.201.168]
> Dec 11 17:47:10 myhost postfix/smtpd[48290]: NOQUEUE: reject:
> RCPT from unknown[89.73.201.168]:
Jim Seymour:
> Hi All,
>
> This may be a weird one, and may be completely OT. If the latter:
> Feel free to tell me to bugger off :)
>
> System is FreeBSD 8.2, running ipfilter and
> postfix-current-2.9.2019,4.
>
> Occasionally I see something like this from ipfilter in
> /var/log/messages:
Am 12.12.2011 00:10, schrieb Jim Seymour:
> Occasionally I see something like this from ipfilter in
> /var/log/messages:
>
> bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.201.168,36545 PR tcp len
> 20 40 -AR OUT
>
> Looking in /var/log/maillog...
>
> Dec 11 17:47:08 myhost postfix/smtpd[48290]: co
Hi All,
This may be a weird one, and may be completely OT. If the latter:
Feel free to tell me to bugger off :)
System is FreeBSD 8.2, running ipfilter and
postfix-current-2.9.2019,4.
Occasionally I see something like this from ipfilter in
/var/log/messages:
bge1 @0:24 b ,25 -> 89.73.2
> Jon L Miller:
> > postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
>
> Some NON-POSTFIX software is leaving its NON-POSTFIX garbage in
> the Postfix queue.
Sounds like a MailScanner issue.
Mark
Jon L Miller:
> postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
Some NON-POSTFIX software is leaving its NON-POSTFIX garbage in
the Postfix queue.
Wietse
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 15:36, Jon L Miller wrote:
> I’m seeing the following message in my log files, had a search on google and
> could not come up with anything.
>
> postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
>
> Can anyone shine some light on the subject?
razor-ag
I'm seeing the following message in my log files, had a search on google and
could not come up with anything.
postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
Can anyone shine some light on the subject?
Thanks,
Jon
* James Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Apologies if this has been asked before.
>
> I would like to log the message headers of email passing through postfix
> so I can review them.
>
> What is the recommended way to do this and will it have an effect on
> performance? our mail server does no
Apologies if this has been asked before.
I would like to log the message headers of email passing through postfix
so I can review them.
What is the recommended way to do this and will it have an effect on
performance? our mail server does not process a very high volume of mail.
Thanks.
Ja
38 matches
Mail list logo
