Birta Levente:
> > This turns out to be problematic, so I won't change this for now.
> > Postfix should probably throttle destinations that persistently
> > drop connections after deferring mail. It is a strong hint that the
> > SMTP client is not welcome.
>
> Just for confirmation: 20140223 shoul
On 24/02/2014 02:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
Birta Levente:
On 21/02/2014 15:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
The behavior that you seem to prefer (throttle down
domains after 4XX reply to "MAIL FROM") is really a bug in the
Postfix SMTP client implementation.
Postfix normally does not th
Wietse Venema:
> Birta Levente:
> > On 21/02/2014 15:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > The behavior that you seem to prefer (throttle down
> > > domains after 4XX reply to "MAIL FROM") is really a bug in the
> > > Postfix SMTP client implementation.
> > >
> > > Postfix normally does not throttle down
Birta Levente:
> On 21/02/2014 15:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The behavior that you seem to prefer (throttle down
> > domains after 4XX reply to "MAIL FROM") is really a bug in the
> > Postfix SMTP client implementation.
> >
> > Postfix normally does not throttle down domains after 4XX reply to
>
On 21/02/2014 15:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema: The behavior that you seem to prefer (throttle down
domains after 4XX reply to "MAIL FROM") is really a bug in the
Postfix SMTP client implementation.
Postfix normally does not throttle down domains after 4XX reply to
"MAIL FROM". The bug
Wietse Venema: The behavior that you seem to prefer (throttle down
domains after 4XX reply to "MAIL FROM") is really a bug in the
Postfix SMTP client implementation.
Postfix normally does not throttle down domains after 4XX reply to
"MAIL FROM". The bug is that Postfix treats server-side disconne
On 21/02/2014 13:41, Wietse Venema wrote:
Birta Levente:
plaintext retries possibily raising this to four.
We had considered special-casing "4XX" replies as a reason to not
retry plaintext when TLS connections are lost. If your more complete
logs demonstrate a need to do that, we may add the r
Wietse Venema:
> Birta Levente:
> > > plaintext retries possibily raising this to four.
> > >
> > > We had considered special-casing "4XX" replies as a reason to not
> > > retry plaintext when TLS connections are lost. If your more complete
> > > logs demonstrate a need to do that, we may add the
Birta Levente:
> > plaintext retries possibily raising this to four.
> >
> > We had considered special-casing "4XX" replies as a reason to not
> > retry plaintext when TLS connections are lost. If your more complete
> > logs demonstrate a need to do that, we may add the requisite logic.
> >
> > Pl
On 19/02/2014 17:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:00:25PM +0200, Birta Levente wrote:
With 2.12.20140209 I get hundreds defferals because:
Feb 19 05:21:59 srv2 postfix-slow/smtp[14313]: Untrusted TLS
connection established to mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.138.112.38]:25:
TLSv1
Try postfix-2.12-20140219 (from ftp.porcupine.org). The "fall back
to plaintext" strategy is refined such that persistent breakage
after the TLS handshake is now again reported as a "destination"
problem, at least on the first pass over the MX hosts. Later, Postfix
will retry plaintext after TLS fa
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:00:25PM +0200, Birta Levente wrote:
> With 2.12.20140209 I get hundreds defferals because:
>
> Feb 19 05:21:59 srv2 postfix-slow/smtp[14313]: Untrusted TLS
> connection established to mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.138.112.38]:25:
> TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (
Birta Levente:
> With 2.12.20140209 I get hundreds defferals because:
>
> Feb 19 05:21:59 srv2 postfix-slow/smtp[14313]: Untrusted TLS connection
> established to mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.138.112.38]:25: TLSv1 with
> cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)
> Feb 19 05:21:59 srv2 postfix-sl
On 19/02/2014 15:19, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
Birta Levente:
I have a problem with Postfix 2.12 Snapshot 20140209.
The qmgr_queue_throttle never fired up for destinations which go through
slow transport and obviously the delivery never suspended to these few
destinations.
Mails whic
Wietse Venema:
> Birta Levente:
> > I have a problem with Postfix 2.12 Snapshot 20140209.
> >
> > The qmgr_queue_throttle never fired up for destinations which go through
> > slow transport and obviously the delivery never suspended to these few
> > destinations.
> > Mails which go out "normally",
On 19/02/2014 13:57, Wietse Venema wrote:
Birta Levente:
I have a problem with Postfix 2.12 Snapshot 20140209.
The qmgr_queue_throttle never fired up for destinations which go through
slow transport and obviously the delivery never suspended to these few
destinations.
Mails which go out "normal
Birta Levente:
> I have a problem with Postfix 2.12 Snapshot 20140209.
>
> The qmgr_queue_throttle never fired up for destinations which go through
> slow transport and obviously the delivery never suspended to these few
> destinations.
> Mails which go out "normally", i.e. not through slow transp
Hi
I have a problem with Postfix 2.12 Snapshot 20140209.
The qmgr_queue_throttle never fired up for destinations which go through
slow transport and obviously the delivery never suspended to these few
destinations.
Mails which go out "normally", i.e. not through slow transport, seems to
throttle:
18 matches
Mail list logo
