Steven Truong a écrit :
> Dear, all. I am running into a scenario where I might need to deliver
> the same incoming email for a user to 2 different IMAP servers.
>
> Is there anyway to implement it with Postfix with its various transport maps?
>
> I have for example [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I would
Linux Addict a écrit :
> [snip]
> local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $virtual_alias_maps
> $alias_maps
remove $virtual_alias_maps from local_recipient_maps.
> [snip]
> mynetworks_style = class
remove mynetworks_style (mynetworks is enough).
> [snip] relay_domains = $mydestination
> -Original Message-
> From: Natxo Asenjo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 October 2008 15:54
> To: Paul Cocker
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: My first config - unable to telnet to port 25,
> virtual.db missing
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Paul Cocker
> <[EMAI
hі!
i have this in my main.cf:
destination_concurrency_feedback_debug = yes
default_destination_rate_delay = 10s
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 10
default_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 0.05
default_destination_concurrency_negative_feedback = 1
default_initial_destination_co
On 21/10/2008, at 9:27 AM, Stephen Holmes wrote:
Well, there's the de facto 'POSTFIX - state of the art message
transport' by Hilderbrandt and Koetter. I found it invaluable,
readable
and relatively thorough. That said, this list is populated with some
incredible minds that would complemen
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:29 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux Addict a écrit :
>
> > [snip]
> > local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $virtual_alias_maps
> > $alias_maps
>
> remove $virtual_alias_maps from local_recipient_maps.
>
> > [snip]
> > mynetworks_style = class
>
> re
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Linux Addict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:29 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Linux Addict a écrit :
>>
>> > [snip]
>> > local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $virtual_alias_maps
>> > $alias_maps
>>
>> remove $virtual
Linux Addict wrote:
Nevermind.. I did strings on one of the messages on "deferred" and got
the information.
use
postcat -q QUEUEID | more
to view the contents of a queued messsage.
--
Noel Jones
Erbil KARAMAN:
>> actually 'letting MTA figure out how to get it to the internet' is not
>> a great approach for high volume senders.
I meant just in terms of letting the primary postfix instance figure out
which other postfix instance to pass it to. It's a good generalised
solution that doesn't
Linux Addict wrote:
Regarding your problem, do what Noel said. check how the message entered
your system by finding all message
Could someone please point to the direction of documents for tracking
Queue ID.?
grep QUEUEID /var/log/maillog
if the mail entered via the "pickup" service
Paul Cocker wrote:
>>
>> Postfix expects this format:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK
>> ^ -> this is a tab
>>
>
> Thanks for the pointers. I've now set something up, but being more
> comfortable in Windows I've set it all up on that side:
>
> =
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Paul Cocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume from your example that I need to insert an OK at the end of
> each line, but the documentation
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relay_recipient_maps seems to
> suggest I just need a list of addresses.
it's
Natxo Asenjo wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Paul Cocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assume from your example that I need to insert an OK at the end of
each line, but the documentation
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relay_recipient_maps seems to
suggest I just need a list of ad
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:58:21PM +1100, Barney Desmond wrote:
> Oh, it's also meant to be high-performance, something I've done some
> testing on but haven't yet completed.
Comparisons are only fair if it actually takes the trouble to make mail
delivery *reliable* by calling fsync() to commit q
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> h??!
>
> i have this in my main.cf:
>
> destination_concurrency_feedback_debug = yes
> default_destination_rate_delay = 10s
> default_destination_concurrency_limit = 10
> default_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 0.05
Greetings,
In the server log files I got back this morning, I see in the records
this entry:
1 Unknown
1 Unknown
1218.30.101.41unknown
Normally this will give me an email address on top, the AUTH type next,
and the IP at the bottom with th
I have a certain user that I try to send mail to on an Earthlink domain
and receive this error...
RCPT TO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> failed: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Recipient address rejected: unverified address: connect to
mx00-dom.earthlink.net[207.217.125.16]:25: Operation timed out
As you can see, we d
Hi there,
A customer of mine is, unfortunately, using BT Internet as her ISP,
and sending email via Postfix on Mac OS 10.4
It seems that she is not getting notification when mail is bounced
because this lame ISP rejects the "from" address of the bounce, and
another bounce is created. See
Asai wrote:
Greetings,
In the server log files I got back this morning, I see in the records
this entry:
1 Unknown
1 Unknown
1218.30.101.41unknown
Normally this will give me an email address on top, the AUTH type next,
and the IP at the
Indeed it's a postfix logwatch entry. Here's a grep of the IP address
from /var/log/maillog
triata postfix/smtpd[11490]: connect from unknown[218.30.101.41]
Oct 20 23:56:49 triata sqlgrey: grey: from awl match: updating
218.30.101.41(218.30.101.41),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Oct 20
Stroller wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A customer of mine is, unfortunately, using BT Internet as her ISP,
> and sending email via Postfix on Mac OS 10.4
>
> It seems that she is not getting notification when mail is bounced
> because this lame ISP rejects the "from" address of the bounce, and
> another b
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I have a certain user that I try to send mail to on an Earthlink domain
> and receive this error...
>
> RCPT TO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> failed: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Recipient address rejected: unverified address: connect to
> mx00-dom.earthlink.net[207.217.125.16]:25: Oper
Hi Brian,
I'll comment on your remarks regarding reject_unverified_sender later,
when I've had the opportunity to read / test thoroughly.
On 21 Oct 2008, at 17:24, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
...
BTW.. btopenworld.com use yahoo MXs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ host btopenworld.com
btopenwor
On 21 Oct 2008, at 18:05, Stroller wrote:
...
I'm pretty sure that I read something about this a couple of weeks
ago (when I was setting this system up) and that a later version of
Postfix behaves in the desired manner, but I can't find the resource
for this now. I obviously wanted to stic
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Truong a écrit :
>> Dear, all. I am running into a scenario where I might need to deliver
>> the same incoming email for a user to 2 different IMAP servers.
>>
>> Is there anyway to implement it with Postfix with its vario
On 21 Oct 2008, at 17:24, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Stroller wrote:
Hi there,
A customer of mine is, unfortunately, using BT Internet as her ISP,
and sending email via Postfix on Mac OS 10.4
It seems that she is not getting notification when mail is bounced
because this lame ISP rejec
Stroller wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I'll comment on your remarks regarding reject_unverified_sender later,
> when I've had the opportunity to read / test thoroughly.
>
>
> On 21 Oct 2008, at 17:24, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> ...
>> BTW.. btopenworld.com use yahoo MXs:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $
On 21 Oct 2008, at 18:30, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
...
SASL is already configured on the host:
$ sudo grep btopenworld.com /etc/postfix/*
/etc/postfix/main.cf:relayhost = [mail.btopenworld.com]
/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd:mail.btopenworld.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:password
Binary file /etc/po
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:34 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> The current best use view of reject_unverified_(recipient|sender) is
> to
> use for your domains that you control.
Thanks, and yes, I agree this should be done. We currently use LDAP
lookups for transports. Is there a way to ti
Robert Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:34 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> The current best use view of reject_unverified_(recipient|sender) is
>> to
>> use for your domains that you control.
>
> Thanks, and yes, I agree this should be done. We currently use LDAP
> look
Asai wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> In the server log files I got back this morning, I see in the records
> this entry:
>
> 1Unknown
>1 Unknown
>1218.30.101.41unknown
>
>
> Normally this will give me an email address on top, the AUTH type next,
> and the
MrC a écrit :
> [snip]
> But, your entry discovered a bug in the parsing of the sasl_sender=
> portion of smtpd's client= log line. The output should look like:
>
>1 SASL authenticated relayed messages --
This may be misleading. something like "claimed SASL sender" woul
I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily interested
in queue management, the ability to move stuff from queue to queue. I'm
already happily using postfix admin for mulit-domain admin and mailgraph
for basic mo
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:07:50PM +0100, Stephen Holmes wrote:
> I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
> could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily interested
> in queue management, the ability to move stuff from queue to queue. I'm
> already happi
On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 22:07 CEST,
Stephen Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
> could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily
> interested in queue management, the ability to move stuff from queue
>
Postfix 2.2, CentOS 4 (yes, I want to upgrade; can't for now).
Note: I have a course of action, but not completely confident I
understand the problem so seeking other eyes on it. See bottom.
On a fallback relay serving several first-pass postfix servers, qmgr
seems to sometimes stop and rest whi
Asai wrote:
Indeed it's a postfix logwatch entry. Here's a grep of the IP address
from /var/log/maillog
triata postfix/smtpd[11490]: connect from unknown[218.30.101.41]
Oct 20 23:56:49 triata sqlgrey: grey: from awl match: updating
218.30.101.41(218.30.101.41),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL PROTE
I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating correctly:
The log from a session from my mail client (Thunderbird) says:
Oct 21 17:15:02
On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 23:23 CEST,
Terry Carmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
> authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
> client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there is
something better than SpamAssassin t
Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 5:29:59 PM, Jim Balo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
> I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
> spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
>
> I am about to
Ofer Inbar:
> Postfix 2.2, CentOS 4 (yes, I want to upgrade; can't for now).
Perhaps you should upgrade.
> # strace -p 31741
> Process 31741 attached - interrupt to quit
> futex(0x2a96b46930, FUTEX_WAIT, 2, NULL ^C
Postfix does not manipulate futexes. The word futex appears
nowhere in Postfix so
J.P. Trosclair wrote:
...
Could someone recommend a really good open source or affordable
commercial anti-spam solution?
...
I haven't done gray listing personally, but I've seen good remarks made aobut
it here on the list and in other places.
Depends on the source/nature of your spam.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jim Balo wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there is
so
Jim Balo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
> I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
> spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
>
> I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there is
> somethin
On 22/10/2008, at 9:29 AM, Jim Balo wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there
Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # strace -p 31741
> > Process 31741 attached - interrupt to quit
> > futex(0x2a96b46930, FUTEX_WAIT, 2, NULL ^C
>
> Postfix does not manipulate futexes. The word futex appears
> nowhere in Postfix source code.
>
> However, there's a mutex deadlock in t
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, James Brown wrote:
On 22/10/2008, at 9:29 AM, Jim Balo wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to
Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 22:07 CEST,
> Stephen Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
>> could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily
>> interested in queue management, the abi
J.P. Trosclair wrote:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 5:29:59 PM, Jim Balo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
>You should post the results of 'postconf -n'. Perhaps you are missing
>some
>smtpd_*_restrictions items that could reduce the load.
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = amavisfeed:[127.0.0.1]:10024
daemon_directory = /usr
J.P. Trosclair wrote:
> ...
>> Could someone recommend a really good open source or affordable
>> commercial anti-spam solution?
>> ...
>>
> I haven't done gray listing personally, but I've seen good remarks
made aobut it here on the list and in other places.
Depends on the source/nature of y
>
> Terry
>
> ---
>
>
> smtpd_client_restrictions=reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname . . .
>
> check_client_access=regexp:/etc/postfix/spam_ip_regex
>
> spam_ip_regex file:
>
> /[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear to be
> connecting from a Dy
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Terry Carmen wrote:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address. /client.*\..*\..*/i 450
AUTO_CLIENT Email Rejected. You appear to be connecting from a Dynamic IP
address.
/cable.*\..*\..*/i 450 A
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jim Balo wrote:
>You should post the results of 'postconf -n'. Perhaps you are missing
>some
>smtpd_*_restrictions items that could reduce the load.
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = amavisfeed:[1
The smarter greylisting engines will make an attempt to identify if the
mail is within the same /24 as a previously greylisted IP within the
specified time period to overcome this issue.
While obviously its not guaranteed to get around this issue, we are
greylisting for approximately 3000 doma
Duane Hill wrote:
"practically none" would depend upon your amount of traffic. Our filter
servers get over seven million connections every 24 hours. Sane Security
does a fair job here at pushing the SpamAssassin score above the default
threshold. I would not suggest using the Sane Security up
Andreas Schuldei:
> h?!
>
> i have this in my main.cf:
>
> destination_concurrency_feedback_debug = yes
> default_destination_rate_delay = 10s
> default_destination_concurrency_limit = 10
> default_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 0.05
> default_destination_concurrency_negative_feedbac
Thanks to all for the input so far. I realize that a big part of my
spam problem is the fact that I do not know this area very well, so
have not done a whole lot to tweak the config. I really wish I had the
time to study this more in depth.
Anyhow, I added "smtpd_client_restrictions" to main.cf
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Noel Jones wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
"practically none" would depend upon your amount of traffic. Our filter
servers get over seven million connections every 24 hours. Sane Security
does a fair job here at pushing the SpamAssassin score above the default
threshold. I wou
> From: Jim Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I can highly recommend gray-listing. It's all I use on
> two Postfix servers, and SPAM is reduced by 98%. A few
> get through, but it's quite tolerable, and I
> haven't seen
> a false-positive in at least two years.
Hi,
Do you have any recommendation o
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jim Balo wrote:
From: Jim Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can highly recommend gray-listing. It's all I use on
two Postfix servers, and SPAM is reduced by 98%. A few
get through, but it's quite tolerable, and I
haven't seen
a false-positive in at least two years.
Hi,
Do
> > default_destination_concurrency_limit = 100
>
> This default is normally set to 20. Some servers may frown
> on you
> attempting to make 100 connections to their server.
>
> > relay_domains =
> > $mydestination
> > smtpd_recipient_limit = 5000
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynet
Hi all,
I would like to ask does Postfix has some local delivery delay
parameter to set? Let's say delay for 1 second per each message id in
qmgr.
For example, if an user send a mail to 70 ncrpt (number of recipient)
at a time, Postfix will handle it as two seperate message and queued
at qmgr
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:02PM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> I have noticed occasional qmgr crashes with the "watchdog timer" error
> occurring, usually when it's in the middle of deferring thousands of
> messages for one domain all at once. I meant to investigate those.
>
> However, based on t
All libspf2 users should read this post by Dan Kaminsky, and upgrade
libspf2 to 1.2.8 as soon as possible:
http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1263
Just in case anyone asks, and not surprisingly, the DNS code in Postfix
has no such lapses.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list
Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can skip waiting for future occurences, the behaviour you describe
> (especially on fallback relays where dead destinations are to be expected)
> fits the known issue like a glove (and we are not at the OJ trial :-).
Regardless, I definitely sometim
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:23:10PM -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
> I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
> authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
> client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating correctly:
>
>
> The lo
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06:40AM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> Victor Duchovni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can skip waiting for future occurences, the behaviour you describe
> > (especially on fallback relays where dead destinations are to be expected)
> > fits the known issue like a glove (
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:59:07AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
>
> P.s. Even though policyd-weight may be old, I've heard good things about
> it. We have a customer that uses it and swears by it.
It's fine, but doesn't have much that postfwd can't do. Postfwd has active
development and somewhat mor
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:59:00 -0400 Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>All libspf2 users should read this post by Dan Kaminsky, and upgrade
>libspf2 to 1.2.8 as soon as possible:
>
>http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1263
>
FWIW, the Ubuntu libspf2 packages for all releases have been patched to
mouss wrote:
> MrC a écrit :
>> [snip]
>> But, your entry discovered a bug in the parsing of the sasl_sender=
>> portion of smtpd's client= log line. The output should look like:
>>
>>1 SASL authenticated relayed messages --
>
> This may be misleading. something like "cl
Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> It is interesting to see an MUA negotiate an anonymous session. Clearly
> T-Bird did not care to ask for or verify the server certificate. Did
> it require special configuration to enable this, or is this default
> T-Bird behaviour?
I see the same in my logs - default s
* Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081022 02:37]:
> Andreas Schuldei:
> > The goal is that the server starts sending mail every 10th
> > second, then after 50 mails increase to 2 mails every 10 seconds,
> > until it sends 10 mails every then seconds, ramping up
> > slowly.
>
> It inserts 10s del
74 matches
Mail list logo
