Children, play nice, or go off-list.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote in
<20240713195449.kkT1qOkd@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
And then, in short. Isn't it extremely unkind.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:10:41PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
|> :
|>|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> ...
|>|No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an exp
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:10:41PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
> :
> |On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> ...
> |No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
> |maximum.
> |
> |>|> Letting aside
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...
|No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
|maximum.
|
|>|> Letting aside the "extended MAIL" client command that i never have
|>|> seen, what i would hope
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> |> I have a problem in that I would like several senders to be able
> |> to send larger messages.
> |
> |You may as well advertise the largest supported size, it is better
> |better than advertising just "SIZE", because clien
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-u\
|sers wrote:
|> Well, i do not know, .. but i have
|>
|> message_size_limit = 50
|
|Wow, that's rather restrictive in age when disk capacities are st
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Well, i do not know, .. but i have
>
> message_size_limit = 50
Wow, that's rather restrictive in age when disk capacities are starting
to be measured in 10s of terabytes, while the ma
is useful.
|but you'd still have to configure message_size_limit as the maximal
|upperbound of the allowed message sizes.
I surely want this.
..in this context i reread RFC 9422 "The LIMITS SMTP Service
Extension" from this year and saw the enormous
S: 250-SIZE 10
E announcement with
smtpd_discard_ehlo_keywords = size, silent_discard
but you'd still have to configure message_size_limit as the maximal
upperbound of the allowed message sizes.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsu
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wk63t2dvkzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The Postfix message size limit is an MTA property, not something
|that varies with the sender. Or client. Or recipient address. If
|you want to allow a larger size, increase message_size_limit, and
|use p
The Postfix message size limit is an MTA property, not something
that varies with the sender. Or client. Or recipient address. If
you want to allow a larger size, increase message_size_limit, and
use postfwd or the like to enforce a lower limit in
smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions.
In the polocy
Hello.
Well, i do not know, .. but i have
message_size_limit = 50
which postfix transforms to RFC 1870
250-SIZE 50
(Btw, does the client part of RFC 1870 actually exist in practice?
I cannot recall to have seen it. Does postfix log such client
declarations? Would not think it
a simple explanation, but didn't come up
> with anything I particularly liked. I think it's correct that there's a hole
> in the documentation, but I don't have a good recommendation on how to fill
> it.
In Postfix 3.7 I have updated the text for message_size_limi
On Thursday, December 23, 2021 3:51:57 PM EST Wietse Venema wrote:
> Scott Kitterman:
> > Currently, postconf.5 has this to say about message_size_limit:
> >
> > message_size_limit (default: 1024)
> >
> > The maximal size in bytes of a message, inclu
Scott Kitterman:
> Currently, postconf.5 has this to say about message_size_limit:
>
> message_size_limit (default: 1024)
>
> The maximal size in bytes of a message, including envelope information.
>
> Note: be careful when making changes. Excessively small values
Currently, postconf.5 has this to say about message_size_limit:
message_size_limit (default: 1024)
The maximal size in bytes of a message, including envelope information.
Note: be careful when making changes. Excessively small values will result
in the loss of non-delivery
hose limits cannot be larger than the limit that is
>>> enforced by the cleanup daemon.
>>
>> How do you set a different limit in cleanup then? Or do you set
>> message_size_limit to the maximum size for submission and then set a
>> separate limit for smtpd?
is
>> enforced by the cleanup daemon.
>
> How do you set a different limit in cleanup then? Or do you set
> message_size_limit to the maximum size for submission and then set a separate
> limit for smtpd? How would you do that?
>
> main.cf:
>message_size_limit=4000
On 20 Nov 2019, at 08:16, Wietse Venema wrote:
> A. Schulze:
>> My goal is to allow different message size on MX and submission.
>> As message_size_limit is a cleanup option, this is my (non working) setup
>> based on http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html#mx_s
A. Schulze:
>
> Hello,
>
> My goal is to allow different message size on MX and submission.
> As message_size_limit is a cleanup option, this is my (non working) setup
> based on http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html#mx_submission
The SMTP daemon also enforces the
Hello,
My goal is to allow different message size on MX and submission.
As message_size_limit is a cleanup option, this is my (non working) setup
based on http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html#mx_submission
main.cf
message_size_limit = 512
master.cf
# define a
W. Michael Petullo:
> The OpenWrt patch hard codes fsspace("/overlay", &fsbuf), because
> OpenWrt installations often make use of an overlay filesystems, mounted at
> "/overlay". This makes sense in some cases, but obviously not when the
> mail queue exists on a big, separate disk.
Lesson learned:
P
>>>server to decide if it will accept any mail at all.
>>>
>>>By default, the Postfix SMTP server rejects MAIL FROM commands when
>>> the
>>>amount of free space is less than 1.5*$message_size_limit (Postfix
>>&
MTP
> >server to decide if it will accept any mail at all.
> >
> >By default, the Postfix SMTP server rejects MAIL FROM commands when
> > the
> >amount of free space is less than 1.5*$message_size_limit (Postfix
> > ver-
> >
> On Sep 10, 2019, at 4:46 PM, W. Michael Petullo wrote:
>
> However, it seems that the capacity of my root mount has some bearing
> on the evaluation of Postfix's message_size_limit and queue_minfree. I
> am getting "insufficient system storage" errors despite havi
t;> However, it seems that the capacity of my root mount has some bearing
>> on the evaluation of Postfix's message_size_limit and queue_minfree. I
>> am getting "insufficient system storage" errors despite having enough
>> space in /mnt/xvdb. I have much less space
wever, it seems that the capacity of my root mount has some bearing
> on the evaluation of Postfix's message_size_limit and queue_minfree. I
> am getting "insufficient system storage" errors despite having enough
> space in /mnt/xvdb. I have much less space available on /.
>
&g
bearing
on the evaluation of Postfix's message_size_limit and queue_minfree. I
am getting "insufficient system storage" errors despite having enough
space in /mnt/xvdb. I have much less space available on /.
I found some relevant functions in Postfix: fsspace() and
smtpd_check_queue().
Bastien Durel:
> Hello, I have 2 questions about message_size_limit :
> - is there a value meaning "unlimited ?"
Since when do computers have unlimited disk space?
> - can it be configured with a table, so it may differ from account to
> account ?
You can enforce sender
Hello, I have 2 questions about message_size_limit :
- is there a value meaning "unlimited ?"
- can it be configured with a table, so it may differ from account to
account ?
Thanks,
--
Bastien
thank You all :)
30 mar 2017 21:47 "Viktor Dukhovni" napisał(a):
>
> > On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Zalezny Niezalezny <
> zalezny.niezale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > # postconf -d | grep message
>
> The "postconf -d" command returns compiled-in defaults.
> For your actual settings, try "p
> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Zalezny Niezalezny
> wrote:
>
> # postconf -d | grep message
The "postconf -d" command returns compiled-in defaults.
For your actual settings, try "postconf", either with
no options or as "postconf -n" for just non-default
settings. See postconf(1) for details.
postconf -c /path/to/config/dir message_size_limit
- massmailing y /etc/postfix
postfix-mail massmailing y /etc/postfix-mail
This is configured in /etc/postfix/main.cf
[root@unixsmtp05 opt]# cat /etc/postfix/main.cf | grep ^messag
message_size_limit = 3072
[root@unixsmtp05 opt]#
Postconf still keeping default
On Thu Sep 15 2016 14:00:46 mro...@insiberia.net
said:
>
> But can anyone answer my question - what factors should I consider when
> increasing the limit in the 30-50MB range (or higher)? Are there drawbacks to
> doing this?
The main factor is that the limit used by most everyone is ab
7;m wondering what the downside of setting a large
> >> >> message_size_limit are?
> >> >>
> >> >> By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
> >> >>
> >> >> I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size -
> >> >>
On 2016-09-15 13:55, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
mro...@insiberia.net:
On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
>> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
>> message_size_limit are?
>>
>&
mro...@insiberia.net:
> On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> > Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
> >> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
> >> message_size_limit are?
> >>
> >> By "large&quo
On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
message_size_limit are?
By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size
On 2016-09-15 07:19, mro...@insiberia.net wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
message_size_limit are?
By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size -
that seems crazy, but maybe I don't under
Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
> message_size_limit are?
>
> By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
>
> I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size - that
> seems
Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
message_size_limit are?
By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size - that
seems crazy, but maybe I don't understand the risks well enough.
Daniel Wasilewski:
> root@vps1:~# postconf -d | grep size_limit
Wietse:
> Where did you get the "postconf -d" from? If it is from a website
> then I would like to get it fixed.
Daniel Wasilewski:
> I seem it on many forums.
>
> Last one is on:
> https://www.howtoforge.com/community/threads/postf
I seem it on many forums.
Last one is on:
https://www.howtoforge.com/community/threads/postfix-says-message-size-exceeds-fixed-limit.1325/
But after Christian K. email i look closer and in same subject is
explanation postconf -n and -d same like in man postfix.
Problem solved.
Best regards
D
>root@vps1:~# postconf -d | grep size_limit
Where did you get the "postconf -d" from? If it is from a website
then I would like to get it fixed.
Wietse
mailbox_size_limit=0
>root@vps1:~# postconf -e message_size_limit=0
>root@vps1:~# /etc/init.d/postfix restart
>[ ok ] Stopping Postfix Mail Transport Agent: postfix.
>[ ok ] Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent: postfix.
>root@vps1:~# postconf -d | grep size_limit
>body_ch
Hi,
At the beginning it's my first email on mailing list, so if I does wrong
please forgive me.
Is somebody can explain why postfix still using default values ?
root@vps1:~# postconf -e mailbox_size_limit=0
root@vps1:~# postconf -e message_size_limit=0
root@vps1:~# /etc/init.d/po
ix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:04 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: message_size_limit versus prepended header
martijn.list:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> On 10/30/2015 12:56 PM, Jeroen Scheerd
martijn.list:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> On 10/30/2015 12:56 PM, Jeroen Scheerder wrote:
> > Quoth Jeroen Scheerder (30 Oct 2015, 12:46):
> >
> >> That would result in a
> >>
> >> 250-SIZE 1024
> >>
> >> helo message, *and* a true size limit of 10239918.
> >
> > I obviously omi
ps
> further (cleanup). It's not just my little header, the additional
> 600 bytes of extra bookkeeping should also be subtracted from the
> message_size_limit in the "250-SIZE" banner line.
>
> But that "250-SIZE" just reports the configured message_si
martijn.list:
> > This got me thinking. Would it be possible to have
> >
> > message_size_limit = 1024
> >
> > but have my smtps/submission services announce slightly less:
> >
> > 250-SIZE 10239918
>
> I think you can override the
nyway, this is how I preemptively struck out
>against having to insert
> foolish disclaimers into message bodies.)
>
> My message_size_limit is set:
>
> message_size_limit = 1024
>
> The main smtp as well as the smtps/submiss
olish disclaimers into message bodies.)
My message_size_limit is set:
message_size_limit = 1024
The main smtp as well as the smtps/submission services report that size after
the EHLO:
250-SIZE 1024
Sane clients respect that size limit and refuse to send messages exceedi
smtpd_delay_reject applies only to the configurable policies.
smtpd_delay_reject does not apply to invalid SMTP commands such
as syntax errors, parameter errors such as SIZE, commands out
of order, and the like.
Wietse
ul detail in the process of associating reports
>> from end users with this event.
>
> There is no sender and there is no recipient. Postfix rejects the
> MAIL FROM command.
thanks for this. i wrongly assumed this event occurred after
message_size_limit bytes had been transmitted.
btb:
> Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: CONNECT from
> [173.201.193.182]:45771 to [10.3.70.5]:25
> Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: PASS OLD [173.201.193.182]:45771
> Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/smtpd[7066]: connect from
> p3plsmtp18-01-2.prod.phx3.secureserver.net[173.2
hi-
when message_size_limit is exceeded, i see the following logs:
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: CONNECT from
[173.201.193.182]:45771 to [10.3.70.5]:25
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: PASS OLD [173.201.193.182]:45771
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/smtpd[7066]: connect
icitly states "[...] or zero (no limit).", the doc for
> >> message_size_limit
> >> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#message_size_limit
> >> doesn't mention that it's possible to turn off the limit by setting this
> >> parameter to zero. Shouldn
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Markus Sch?nhaber:
>> Hi,
>>
>> while the documentation for mailbox_size_limit
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_size_limit
>> explicitly states "[...] or zero (no limit)."
11.04.2014 13:14, Wietse Venema:
> Markus Sch?nhaber:
>> Hi,
>>
>> while the documentation for mailbox_size_limit
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_size_limit
>> explicitly states "[...] or zero (no limit).", the doc for
>> messag
Markus Sch?nhaber:
> Hi,
>
> while the documentation for mailbox_size_limit
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_size_limit
> explicitly states "[...] or zero (no limit).", the doc for
> message_size_limit
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#messa
Hi,
while the documentation for mailbox_size_limit
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_size_limit
explicitly states "[...] or zero (no limit).", the doc for
message_size_limit
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#message_size_limit
doesn't mention that it's poss
>> Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
>> to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
>> should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
>
> Postfix configuration parameters don't capriciously disappear.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:58:20PM -0800, Grant wrote:
> Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
> to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
> should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
Postfix configuration paramet
On 2/13/2014 7:58 PM, Grant wrote:
> Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
> to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
> should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
>
> - Grant
>
Yes, it's still vali
Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
- Grant
On 06 Dec 2013, at 17:21 , Jose Borges Ferreira wrote:
> I've setup a Postfix like this, having on the submission port a bigger
> value than the message_size_limit specified in main.cf
>
> main.cf
> message_size_limit = 1000
>
> master.cf
>
Jose Borges Ferreira:
> Hi!
>
> I've setup a Postfix like this, having on the submission port a bigger
> value than the message_size_limit specified in main.cf
>
> main.cf
> message_size_limit = 1000
>
> master.cf
> smtp inet n - n -
Hi!
I've setup a Postfix like this, having on the submission port a bigger
value than the message_size_limit specified in main.cf
main.cf
message_size_limit = 1000
master.cf
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
submission inet n - n - -
On 06 Jun 2013, at 06:40 , Raphael Bauduin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have message_size_limit set at the default value:
> # postconf | grep message_size_limit
> message_size_limit = 1024
>
> I create a file to attach by:
> # dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/75 bs=1024 count=7
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
>
> Why is there a 2Mb+ difference between the message_size_limit value and
>> the
>> attachment size accepted? (I don't think the envelope can take 2Mb...)
>>
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
Why is there a 2Mb+ difference between the message_size_limit value and the
attachment size accepted? (I don't think the envelope can take 2Mb...)
It doesn't. But an encoded attachment does take up quite a deal more
space than the origina
Hi,
I have message_size_limit set at the default value:
# postconf | grep message_size_limit
message_size_limit = 1024
I create a file to attach by:
# dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/75 bs=1024 count=7500
and then try to send it with:
# echo 'test 75' | biabam /tmp/75 -s tes
It's true I don't have your experience as you are the postfix coders.
But it's also true you don't know what can be my expericence.
Considering your political answers since the beginning, embarassing for who?
You're right that's enough. I'm going to answer you in private.
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le
> sorry, but after following the thread you are not qualified
> enough to judge design-patterns of a software you do not
> understand enough
I agree totally on that. That's why I write in the users mailing list, not in
the developpers mailing list.
To stop this thread that is borring for everybo
You're right that's enough and I'll answer you in private.
Wietse Venema a écrit :
> Nicolas HAHN:
>> The "archietcture" is not a good excuse for me, I'm sorry. As a
>> coder, allowing a software to start despite the fact there is a
>> FATAL is a total non-sens. And saying finally that is just a
Am 24.04.2013 19:45, schrieb Nicolas HAHN:
> The "archietcture" is not a good excuse for me, I'm sorry. As a coder
well, that's the difference between "coder" and "delevoper"
a "coder" writes something which works for now and every
few years all is thrown away because the architecture
and softw
Nicolas HAHN:
> The "archietcture" is not a good excuse for me, I'm sorry. As a
> coder, allowing a software to start despite the fact there is a
> FATAL is a total non-sens. And saying finally that is just a daemon
> which will not run but the others will, I really don't know how
> to take it...
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 07:45:52PM +0200, Nicolas HAHN wrote:
> The "archietcture" is not a good excuse for me, I'm sorry.
You don't yet known enough about Postfix to appreciate the answer,
this is not your fault, but the design is fine.
--
Viktor.
0:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/local[9370]:
>> fatal: main.cf configuration error: mailbox_size_limit is smaller
>> than message_size_limit
>
> Here, local(8) is having a fatal error. This error occurs whenever
> local (and probably virtual(8) as well) is invoked for delivery.
> Conversely, t
:04:38.005665+00:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/local[9370]:
> fatal: main.cf configuration error: mailbox_size_limit is smaller
> than message_size_limit
Here, local(8) is having a fatal error. This error occurs whenever
local (and probably virtual(8) as well) is invoked for delivery.
Conversely,
Yea. Thanks, i've seen it the first time you posted it.
But that's not for this reason I'll change my mind about this.
BR.
nicolas
Wietse Venema a écrit :
> Nicolas HAHN:
>> What I consider just abnormal as already written is that for me
>> (so it's my opinion), Postfix should refuse to start
Nicolas HAHN:
> What I consider just abnormal as already written is that for me
> (so it's my opinion), Postfix should refuse to start when it detects
> a fatal about a configuration issue in the config files. But it
> starts any way and display each minute the fatal in the log file.
If you think
ion error: mailbox_size_limit is smaller than message_size_limit
2013-04-24T10:04:39.006185+00:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/master[26402]: warning:
process /usr/libexec/postfix/local pid 9370 exit status 1
2013-04-24T10:04:39.006209+00:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/master[26402]: warning:
/usr/libexec/postfix/local: bad comman
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:47:26PM +0200, Nicolas HAHN wrote:
> This is a reply to myself because I'm reviewing the way it works.
>
> > Yes, but if I'm right, the log message is emitted at the time there
> > is an e-mail processed (by postfix/local for my issue).
>
> In fact, the fatal is writt
This is a reply to myself because I'm reviewing the way it works.
> Yes, but if I'm right, the log message is emitted at the time there
> is an e-mail processed (by postfix/local for my issue).
In fact, the fatal is written in the logs each minute and 1 second for this
issue in my case by the
me it is started
> or its configuration is reloaded, and REFUSE to start because of
> "fatal: main.cf configuration error: mailbox_size_limit is smaller
> than message_size_limit".
>
> Don't you think?
If you think about duplicating all configuration tests that are
inside P
This story also makes me think, suddenly, that I should integrate in my Log
Search Tool a feature allowing real time fatal error catching (and not only
fatal) form postfix logs and real time alerting of the users using the tool in
case a fatal comes during e-mail procesing. Will see that for ver
oaded, and REFUSE to start because of "fatal: main.cf configuration error:
mailbox_size_limit is smaller than message_size_limit".
Don't you think?
But I learn I learn (well... I try)
Wietse Venema a écrit :
> Nicolas HAHN:
>> Postfix feature request: that would be nice
Nicolas HAHN:
> Postfix feature request: that would be nice that Postfix be able
> to do this kind of basic checks by itself when starting (or when
> configuration is reloaded) between various inter-dependent
> configuration settings, and display in the logs at least some
> warnings when such kind
> 1. Don't send bounces to postmaster, just generate and read log summaries
> that may highlight aggregate problems with your mail stream.
>
> notify_classes =
>
> This applies to any MTA handing mail for a large number of users,
> it is fine to have postmaster notices for a ma
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:37:17PM +0200, Nicolas HAHN wrote:
> > More likely you have a mailbox size limit smaller than the message
> > size limit.
>
> Yes, that's the reason. I completely forgot to check the matching
> between both settings.
>
> The mailbox size limit was set to its default va
> More likely you have a mailbox size limit smaller than the message
> size limit.
Yes, that's the reason. I completely forgot to check the matching between both
settings.
The mailbox size limit was set to its default value of 50 Mb. After setting it
to 150 Mb, the issue was fixed.
Note: the b
Nicolas HAHN:
Content-Description: Version texte brut du message
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> OK.
>
> I did some tries and it seems that I cannot go above 40 Mb for
> message_size_limit to avoid the issue.
>
> As you wrote, here below is a set of lo
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Nicolas HAHN wrote:
> 2013-04-24T12:32:01.442962+00:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/qmgr[24391]: 6B34360BAA:
> from=, size=8389, nrcpt=1 (queue
> active)
> 2013-04-24T12:36:09.981198+00:00 iccpfxor04 postfix/qmgr[27126]: 6B34360BAA:
> from=, size=8389, nrcpt=1 (q
ch time I've reloaded (and even restarted) postfix after a config change.
Mm But you're probably right. I might have forget to check the
mailbox_size_limit to make it matching with the message_size_limit... I go
check that
&
Am 24.04.2013 15:22, schrieb Nicolas HAHN:
> As you wrote, here below is a set of log lines during the issue. The emails
> staying in the growing active queue are
> the bounce messages (we intercept them to send a copy to postmaster):
>
> [root@iccpfxor04 postfix]# grep 6B34360BAA /var/log/mail
OK.
I did some tries and it seems that I cannot go above 40 Mb for
message_size_limit to avoid the issue.
As you wrote, here below is a set of log lines during the issue. The emails
staying in the growing active queue are the bounce messages (we intercept them
to send a copy to postmaster
Nicolas HAHN:
> I've modified message_size_limit from 20 Mb to 120 Mb this morning.
> I know that's not something to do and we explained to the customer
> a messaging system wasn't in any case a file transfer service...
> But after, politic came in and blablabla...
>
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
