Hi
im using smtp to send but filtering all with amavisd. The solution of
content-filter needs to create in main.cf or in master.cf?
Thanks
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM, mouss wrote:
> deconya a écrit :
> > Hi
> >
> > Im configuring a server with postfix amavisd and spamassassin and
> > app
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>
>> I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
>> and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
>> simulate sending it ou
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brandon Hilkert:
>> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
>> of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
>> looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
>> signing in
Brandon Hilkert:
> What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
Look in my reply. There is an example.
Wietse
> - Original Message -
> From: "Victor Duchovni"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance tuning
>
>
> > On Th
* Brandon Hilkert :
> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
> SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to
> not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey signing into
> the process. The choice has been made to go with postfi
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> As I mentioned, we're using the XFS system for the queue, does that provide
> any additional benefit, or would ext3 perform the same? Keep in mind, we
> will be dealing with 1,000,000 piece mailouts during a session. My findings
> were that
Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH)"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
As I mentioned, we're using the XF
* Brandon Hilkert :
> Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Yes
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschimpfung.de
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder,
but when
On Friday 20 March 2009 12:04:22 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Please do not top post.
We use ext3 to have simple, repeatable, clear server setups without surprises
or pitfalls. Performance is good enough for our needs, so I never actually
What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
- Original Message -
From: "Victor Duchovni"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I understand what you mean a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David A. Gershman
wrote:
> from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a setting in
> master.cf (or other .cf file) which will reject any email from an
> external IP (other than my own) *and* is claiming to be from a local
> user account.
You'll block
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58:52PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
> > I would suggest separating relay control from other checks. something like
> >
> > smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks
> > permit_sasl_authenticated
>
> This has been proposed before.
>
> ht
Yeah, Thought of that a little after mailing. Oh well, I guess I need
to keep my efforts in later defenses (spamassassin).
Thanks.
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David A. Gershman
> wrote:
> > from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a setting in
> > master.cf (or other .cf
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to
Hello,
I'm trying to make additional conditions work on my system :
Suse 11.1 , postfix 2.5.5 and mysql 5.0.67.
Forwarding and delivering mails to V_USERS works fine for me but I need to
make additional condition
so I make new column mailactiv with default '1'.
If the mailactiv is set to '1' mail
- Original Message -
From: "Brandon Hilkert"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
We send
Noel Jones wrote:
> Chris Dos wrote:
>> Noel Jones wrote:
It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:
So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
postmap -q "RCPT TO:"
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it came back with a result of DISCARD.
So I guess
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I also put the queue directory back on an ext3 partition and the rates
went up by about a factor of two.
Also, by default the syslog messages were already set with "
-/var/log/mail.log". I disabled mail logging all together and found no
change in rates.
My disk is w
Brandon Hilkert:
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
>
> mkdir /ram
> mount -t ramfs none /ram
>
> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the queue.
> Should I be doing it a different way?
Postfix requires that the amount of space
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:
So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
postmap -q "RCPT TO:"
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it came back with a result of DISCARD.
So I guess I don't understa
Noel Jones wrote:
>> I was was reading the header_checks won't work on bounced mail. I
>> setup a regexp check_recipient_access map.
>> This is the regexp file verp_redirect.regexp :
>> /^RCPT TO:.+\+.+\=...@.+\..+$/ REDIRECTverpbounce
>>
>> It's still not working. Here is the p
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:59:05PM +0100, Sebastian Chociwski wrote:
> query = SELECT email FROM users WHERE email='%s'
> AND mailactiv='1'
Is the "mailactiv" column integer-valued or string-valued?
> NOT WORK.
You really should report output from tests with "postmap -q". "NOT WOR
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
mkdir /ram
mount -t ramfs none /ram
and when I send
Chris Dos wrote:
Well, pointing the gun the wrong way is differently something that I don't want
to be doing. But in the case,
I'm confused. I'm having mail-dr send out to another server,
mail.chrisdos.com, on the internet. Mail-DR is
a separate mail server all together on a different domai
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [AMaViS-user] rw_loop: leaving rw loop, no progress
Date: Friday 20 March 2009
From: Mark Martinec
To: amavis-u...@lists.sourceforge.net
Ivan,
> This is log in attached files
Thanks, interesting and strange.
I'll CC this to the Postfix mai
Brandon Hilkert:
> >> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the
> >> queue.
> >> Should I be doing it a different way?
> >
> > Postfix requires that the amount of space is several times larger
> > than the message size limit
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc: "Wietse Venema" ;
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
>> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the
>> queue.
>> Should I be doing it
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> I've been running everything from scripts, hoping to zero in on the
> bottleneck.
How many messages are you sending in parallel in the injector scripts?
SMTP is a high latency half-duplex protocol, and a single injector will
neve
- Original Message -
From: "Victor Duchovni"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I've been running everything from scripts, hoping to zero in on the
bottleneck.
How many messag
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:32:26PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Victor Duchovni"
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance tuning
>
>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>>
>>> I've been run
Noel Jones wrote:
> Chris Dos wrote:
>>
>> Well, pointing the gun the wrong way is differently something that I
>> don't want to be doing. But in the case,
>> I'm confused. I'm having mail-dr send out to another server,
>> mail.chrisdos.com, on the internet. Mail-DR is
>> a separate mail server
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Well, pointing the gun the wrong way is differently something that I
don't want to be doing. But in the case,
I'm confused. I'm having mail-dr send out to another server,
mail.chrisdos.com, on the internet. Mail-DR is
a separate mail server
Hello,
I need to only allow access to known addresses, and found that setting up
smtpd_recipient_restrictions in main.cf would reject unauthorized recipients. I
have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = hash:/etc/postfix/allowed_users,
reject_unauth_destination
I ran "postm
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:13:21AM -0700, Post Freak wrote:
> I need to only allow access to known addresses, and found that setting
> up smtpd_recipient_restrictions in main.cf would reject unauthorized
> recipients. I have this setting in main.cf:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> hash
Hello,
Thank you for the configuration, but I am still able to send email to addresses
not listed in allowed_users. Here is my new config:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_destination,
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/allowed_users, reject
I've restarted postfix, but I can e
Chris Dos wrote:
> Noel Jones wrote:
>>> Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
>>> unknown on the other end and it is rejected
>>> right away, is there another way to do this.
>>>
>>> The whole point of this exercise for me is to just intercept a bounce
>>> back and pro
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> Our test system is a pretty standard SATA disk with 2GB memory. If disk is
> the necessary resource, would we see an immediate benefit by going to a SCSI
> disk or even a SCSI array, or does that hardware benefit flatten out at some
> point
--
Chris Dos
Senior Engineer
Cell: 303-520-1821
Chris Dos wrote:
> Chris Dos wrote:
>> Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole
Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
>> unknown on the other end and it is rejected
>> right away, is there another way to do this.
>>
>> The whole point of this exercise for me is to just intercept a bounce
>> back and process it internally inst
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:27:27AM -0700, J Sloan wrote:
> For what it's worth, we've found ext3 to be far too slow for our needs.
> The best setup we've found is reiserfs, mounted with "noatime" and
> "notail" options -
Lets not start file system wars in this thread. The OP's problem is
largely
For what it's worth, we've found ext3 to be far too slow for our needs.
The best setup we've found is reiserfs, mounted with "noatime" and
"notail" options -
Joe
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
> Subje
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Post Freak wrote:
> Thank you for the configuration, but I am still able to send email to
> addresses not listed in allowed_users. Here is my new config:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> reject_unauth_destination,
> check_recipient_access
Hello,
Yes, postconf did respond with one line and 3 restrictions. Here are the
results:
[r...@myhost postfix]# postconf smtpd_recipient_restrictions
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_destination,
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/allowed_users, reject
Thanks!
___
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:00:25PM -0700, Post Freak wrote:
> Hello,
> Yes, postconf did respond with one line and 3 restrictions. Here are the
> results:
>
> [r...@myhost postfix]# postconf smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_destination,
> check_recipie
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Chris Dos wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole point of this exercise for me is to j
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, mouss wrote:
>
> That's possible. please do what I told you. if you did and you still
> have a problem, feel free to ask. but it's annoying for us to help fix
> problems that are known and for which the solution is as easy as to
> follow well documented procedure
OH sorry for that , heres more information:
Activmail is integer.
I checked the varchar "mail" column with default 'y' and got :
query = SELECT email FROM users WHERE email='%s'
AND mail='y'
serwersuse111:~ # postmap -q sebastian...@example.pl
mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual_email2
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:09:29PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
>> Though now I'm getting this error after sending bounce to pipe:
>> Mar 20 12:41:54 mail-dr postfix/pipe[10163]: warning: unexpected attribute
>> nrequest from bounce socket
>> (expecting: flags)
>> Mar 20 12:41:54 mail-dr postfix/pipe
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 08:19:42PM +0100, Sebastian Chociwski wrote:
> OH sorry for that , heres more information:
> Activmail is integer.
Then the correct SQL query syntax is:
activmail=1
NOT
activmail='1'
This is basic SQL, not Postfix.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-
I'm trying to get my queue to ramfs. I mounted a volume. When I send mail to
it, it tells me there's insufficient storage.
I have set:
message_size_limit = 0
What do I need to do to get it to accept mail?
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:09:29PM +, Duane Hill wrote:
>
>>> Though now I'm getting this error after sending bounce to pipe:
>>> Mar 20 12:41:54 mail-dr postfix/pipe[10163]: warning: unexpected attribute
>>> nrequest from bounce socket
>>> (expecting: flags)
>>> Mar
I made the syslog_name = postfix-test change, and pasted the contents below.
The postfr...@gmail.com isn't specified in allowed_users, but postfr...@yahoo
is. Also, where do I remove smtpd_access_maps? I don't see that setting in
main.cf.
/var/log/maillog:
Mar 20 13:43:37 slc-monitor1 postfix-t
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:45:50PM -0700, Post Freak wrote:
> I made the syslog_name = postfix-test change, and pasted the contents below.
> The postfr...@gmail.com isn't specified in allowed_users, but postfr...@yahoo
> is. Also, where do I remove smtpd_access_maps? I don't see that setting in
Thanks for the feedback. I told the client the maximal_backoff_time and
maximal_queue_lifetime settings were way too high, and could cause issues, but
they didn't care.
How I make sure the master.cf doesn't override the recipient restrictions?
Here's everything from the maillog after I send a
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Post Freak wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I told the client the maximal_backoff_time
and maximal_queue_lifetime settings were way too high, and could
cause issues, but they didn't care.
How I make sure the master.cf doesn't override the recipient
restriction
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I'm trying to get my queue to ramfs. I mounted a volume. When I send
mail to it, it tells me there's insufficient storage.
Not sure about the error, but in general RAMFS sounds like a bad idea
for a number of reasons including the ability to crash your machine if
it fil
Hello Sahil,
I'm not as concerned about the locally delivered mail. My main concern is I can
email recipients outside the network even though I have specified the
restriction.
Thank you.
From: Sahil Tandon
To: Post Freak
Cc: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Sen
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Post Freak wrote:
Hello Sahil,
I'm not as concerned about the locally delivered mail. My main
concern is I can email recipients outside the network even though I
have specified the restriction.
I said locally SUBMITTED. Not locally delivered.
smtpd_*_restr
Sorry, I did not CC postfix-users...
- Forwarded Message
From: Post Freak
To: Sahil Tandon
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:50:09 PM
Subject: Re: Issue with smtpd_recipient_restrictions
AH And the light comes on!
Thank you very much for the clarification.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:41:22PM -0700, Post Freak wrote:
> I'm not as concerned about the locally delivered mail. My main concern
> is I can email recipients outside the network even though I have specified
> the restriction.
The restriction is an *SMTP server* restriction and cannot possibly
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Carmen"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc: "Postfix users"
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Move queue to RAMFS
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I'm trying to get my queue to ramfs. I mounted a volume. When I send mail
to it, it tells me there's in
I knew it must be something I am missing but the mails are still delivered.
MYSQL cut :
mailactivint(1) 0
mailvarchar(1) n
email2email.cf :
query = SELECT email FROM users WHERE email='%s' AND mailactiv= 1
(checked as well : query = SELECT ema
hello,
in our postfix setup we use virtual_alias_maps to build some simple
mailing-/distribution lists. now we want to reject every mail to a list
where the sender is not a member of the list.
example:
virtual_alias_maps
li...@domaina.tld us...@domain1.tld us...@domain1.tld us...@domain1.tld
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:17:28PM +0100, Sebastian Chociwski wrote:
> I knew it must be something I am missing but the mails are still delivered.
> MYSQL cut :
> mailactiv int(1) 0
> mail varchar(1) n
> email2email.cf :
> query = SELECT email FROM
Hi
I'm green to Postfix. I have 2 anti-spam servers that I upgraded
MailScanner to the latest version and a completely new install of
MailScanner and postfix etc. All three have the same problems . the
one thing that is common to all servers is the original configs. For
the google-ing and digging a
I am (almost ;) ) 100% sure that only mail could be delivered is in ONE
mysql db.
serwersuse111:~ # cat /etc/postfix/main.cf
queue_directory=/var/spool/postfix
command_directory=/usr/sbin
daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix
data_directory=/var/lib/postfix
mail_owner=postfix
myhostname = suse11.eur
Hello,
Today i had a mail that stuck in the queue with error:
lost connection with mail.someserver.xxx [xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] while
sending RCPT TO), so i looked at logs.
During the session, their server sent mail:
from=<> to=
proto=SMTP helo= and got greylisted each time.
After this, mail ended in d
David A. Gershman a écrit :
> Yeah, Thought of that a little after mailing. Oh well, I guess I need
> to keep my efforts in later defenses (spamassassin).
>
> Thanks.
>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David A. Gershman
>> wrote:
>>> from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a
Heiko Baumann a écrit :
> hello,
>
> in our postfix setup we use virtual_alias_maps to build some simple
> mailing-/distribution lists. now we want to reject every mail to a list
> where the sender is not a member of the list.
>
>
> example:
>
> virtual_alias_maps
>
> li...@domaina.tld us...@d
Gregory Machin a écrit :
> Hi
> I'm green to Postfix. I have 2 anti-spam servers that I upgraded
> MailScanner to the latest version and a completely new install of
> MailScanner and postfix etc. All three have the same problems . the
> one thing that is common to all servers is the original config
Tomasz Suchodolski a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> Today i had a mail that stuck in the queue with error:
> lost connection with mail.someserver.xxx [xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] while
> sending RCPT TO), so i looked at logs.
> During the session, their server sent mail:
> from=<> to=
> proto=SMTP helo= and got greylis
Brandon Hilkert:
> >> what is best to look out and compare?
> >
> > When the disk is 100% busy, then it is the bottle neck. Disks can
> > be 100% busy jumping around doing very little I/O.
> >
> > As Noel suggested in earlier email, try running smtp-sink which
> > does no disk I/O at all. If thing
2009/3/21 Brandon Hilkert :
>> When the disk is 100% busy, then it is the bottle neck. Disks can
>> be 100% busy jumping around doing very little I/O.
>>
>> As Noel suggested in earlier email, try running smtp-sink which
>> does no disk I/O at all. If things are still slow, then the problem
>> is
* Brandon Hilkert :
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
>
> mkdir /ram
> mount -t ramfs none /ram
YOu need to stop postfix first
You need to make sure postfix users /ram as queue_directory
I'd rather mount things differently (tmpfs on Linux), directly "over
* Brandon Hilkert :
> I was able to get it to mount to tmpfs and it showed no change in
> performance, so that would theoretcially rule out any existing disk issue
> right?
You said ext3 was faster, thus I think your ramfs test was flawed.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
I was able to get it to mount to tmpfs and it showed no change in
performance, so that would theoretcially rule out any existing disk issue
r
* Brandon Hilkert :
>> You said ext3 was faster, thus I think your ramfs test was flawed.
>>
>
> I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
> throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
>
> So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
Probably.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
I'm just following this thread because of curiosity.
tmpfs? Or,
- Original Message -
From: "Duane Hill"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
79 matches
Mail list logo
