Hi:
As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
following:
postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
In my thought, it couldn't be sent out with the wrong transport.
But when I re
hello,
In master.cf, I have
smtp inet n - n - 100 smtpd
Is there a way to measure the number of connections to see how many
times the limit is reached ?
Thanks
--
Pascal
* Pascal Maes :
> hello,
>
>
> In master.cf, I have
>
> smtp inet n - n - 100 smtpd
>
>
> Is there a way to measure the number of connections to see how many times
> the limit is reached ?
Postfix logs a warning once the limit is reached
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
P
Lebesgue Yu:
> Hi:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
>
> ? ?In my thought, it couldn't be sent out with the wro
Hi,
I've got an issue with local deliveries.
I've got a setup where local deliveries are pushed to procmail, which does spam
checking (spamassassin). Since the host is rather slow, the spam processing
takes some time to complete (say 10 sec). Now, whenever the server has been
offline for a whil
Anders Eriksson:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've got an issue with local deliveries.
>
> I've got a setup where local deliveries are pushed to procmail, which does
> spam
> checking (spamassassin). Since the host is rather slow, the spam processing
> takes some time to complete (say 10 sec). Now, whenever th
Hello
I would like to apply the rate limiting to one of our "customer".
Is the following definition of mynetworks correct ?
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8,10.0.0.0/8,!
130.104.104.130,130.104.0.0/16,192.168.128.0/17,193.190.89.0/24
In that case, the client 130.104.104.130 is no more considered fr
* Pascal Maes :
> Hello
>
> I would like to apply the rate limiting to one of our "customer".
>
> Is the following definition of mynetworks correct ?
>
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8,10.0.0.0/8,!
> 130.104.104.130,130.104.0.0/16,192.168.128.0/17,193.190.89.0/24
>
>
> In that case, the client 130.104.1
Hi,
I'm currently playing around with client certificates in postfix.
Is there any way do do something similar to reject_sender_login_mismatch
with certificate authentication? A table to map from certificate
fingerprints to allowed addresses?
Regards
Florian Wagner
Florian Wagner schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently playing around with client certificates in postfix.
>
> Is there any way do do something similar to reject_sender_login_mismatch
> with certificate authentication? A table to map from certificate
> fingerprints to allowed addresses?
>
postfwd (a p
Pascal Maes wrote:
hello,
In master.cf, I have
smtp inet n - n - 100 smtpd
Is there a way to measure the number of connections to see how many
times the limit is reached ?
Thanks
Postfix will log a warning when the limit is reached. If this
happen
Hi all.
Today, while sending an email, I monitored postfix's log. The message was
going thru postfix and then relayed to the recipient's MX:
Jun 8 13:03:21 dsrv postfix/smtpd[13477]: AADDD17B812:
client=whatever[xx.xx.xx.xx], sasl_method=LOGIN,
sasl_username=u...@mydomain.com
Jun 8 13:03:22 dsrv
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:18:32 +0200, "Jack Knowlton"
wrote:
> Hi all.
> Today, while sending an email, I monitored postfix's log. The message was
> going thru postfix and then relayed to the recipient's MX:
>
> Jun 8 13:03:21 dsrv postfix/smtpd[13477]: AADDD17B812:
> client=whatever[xx.xx.xx.xx],
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:41:14AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Pascal Maes wrote:
>> hello,
>> In master.cf, I have
>> smtp inet n - n - 100 smtpd
>> Is there a way to measure the number of connections to see how many times
>> the limit is reached ?
>> Thanks
>
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 08:40:27AM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> > Until here, everything was kosher. Amavis processed the message and
> > postfix correctly applied the "sender_bcc_maps" setting.
> > What I don't really get, is what happened next:
> >
> > Jun 8 13:04:14 dsrv postfix/smtpd[13477]
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:31:06PM +0200, Florian Wagner wrote:
> I'm currently playing around with client certificates in postfix.
>
> Is there any way do do something similar to reject_sender_login_mismatch
> with certificate authentication? A table to map from certificate
> fingerprints to all
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 08:40:27AM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
Jun 8 13:04:17 dsrv postfix/smtpd[13477]: disconnect from
polluce.unimo.it[155.185.1.151]
I am by no means an expert at e-mail. But, my first guess would be that
the server at polluce.unimo.it did a test of
Jacqui Caren wrote:
> Question: can you tell from the logs whether the SAV system
> QUIT or simply disconnects. I currently track failure to
> use quit (via assp front end) as a factor when deciding
> which IPs to blacklist.
>
Postfix does not log QUITs in its normal logging.
Postfix will log "con
Jacqui Caren:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 08:40:27AM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> >>> Jun 8 13:04:17 dsrv postfix/smtpd[13477]: disconnect from
> >>> polluce.unimo.it[155.185.1.151]
> >> I am by no means an expert at e-mail. But, my first guess would be that
> >> the ser
Lebesgue Yu:
> Hi:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
Don't do this. It triggers a bug with the "new" queue mana
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Just so you know, Postfix won't always send QUIT.
Under what conditions does it not. I thought QUIT was part of the dance
specified by the RFCs. Or does it happen in response to non-RFC connections?
--
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:19:26PM +0800, Lebesgue Yu wrote:
> ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> following:
> ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; postsuper -h ALL;
Don't release a
Glenn English:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Just so you know, Postfix won't always send QUIT.
>
> Under what conditions does it not.
It does not make sense to ask that question, as if you are
fully aware of what is happening at the very other end of
the SMTP connection.
Wietse
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Lebesgue Yu:
> > Hi:
> > ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> > transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> > following:
> > ? ?postsuper -H ALL; postfix flush; sleep 1; p
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Lebesgue Yu:
> > > Hi:
> > > ? ?As the subject says, I configure the postfix with the wrong smtp
> > > transport and try to send a email with that transport using command as
> > > following:
> > > ? ?postsuper
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:10:29PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > /* qmgr_job_find - lookup job associated with named message and
> > transport */
> >
> > /*
> > * Instead of traversing the message job list, we use single per
> > * transport hash table. This is better (at leas
Hi.
I need some custom configuration for one destination server,
fpo.mail.dk, that implements rate control. This server handles a lot of
domains, like mail.dk, sport.dk, pc.dk.
My current approach is to make the configuration in master.cf and link
it up in a transport map:
tdc unix
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:10:29PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > /* qmgr_job_find - lookup job associated with named message and
> > > transport */
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Instead of traversing the message job list, we use single per
> > > * transport ha
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > reasonably small.
>
> I see one hash table that is indexed by the queue ID, so this
> would involve one hash-table lookup per transport:
Not sure what "thi
Anders Melchiorsen:
> Hi.
>
> I need some custom configuration for one destination server,
> fpo.mail.dk, that implements rate control. This server handles a lot of
> domains, like mail.dk, sport.dk, pc.dk.
>
> My current approach is to make the configuration in master.cf and link
> it up in a
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > reasonably small.
> >
> > I see one hash table that is indexed by the queue ID, so this
> > would involve one hash-table lookup per
Hi, postfix list,
I have a mail/web server running postfix with mailman and the harddrive
for the server is on the verge of failure. And we plan to do a fresh OS
install on the old server. So I am going to migrate the postfix service
to a temporary server and during this period time, I will instal
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > > reasonably small.
> > >
> > > I see one hash table that i
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:32:39PM -0500, Zhengquan Zhang wrote:
> Hi, postfix list,
>
> I have a mail/web server running postfix with mailman and the harddrive
> for the server is on the verge of failure. And we plan to do a fresh OS
> install on the old server. So I am going to migrate the post
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:57PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:15:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Mind you, the expected number of transports for a message is I think
> > > > > reasonably small.
> > > >
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:06:44PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > We could instead avoid the problematic per-transport queue-id->job hashes,
> > and allow "nqmgr" to tolerate multiple instances of the queue file,
> > just like "oqmgr".
>
> And knowingly write code that can deliver mail twice?
W
Jiri Veselsky:
> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at ...
> X-Virus-Status: Clean
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.6 required=7.0...
> X-Spam-Level: ***
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on ...
>
> I think that milters works correctly. I save me
Greetings all,
Please pardon the ignorance here as I am pretty new with Postfix. Trying to
ween myself away from Qmail.
I have a server that needs to act as both an inbound SMTP server and as a
smarthost for outbound mail. We have domain keys that we need to manage and it
seems the easiest
Oh, wait ok I see what the problem is. I had mydomain and relay_domains set
wrong. Now it works fine, except the recipient shows up like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Thoughts?
-Geoff
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [owner-postfix-us...@postfix.
Hi Noel!
Thank you for your further answer!
(You are right with the demand of sending configs to end guessing, of course!)
Because of your persitently drawing I was encouraged to look for other reasons
than the obvious ones. And I found my mistake, after all. Thank you!
I used to set smtpd_sas
GeoffSweet wrote:
Oh, wait ok I see what the problem is. I had mydomain and relay_domains set
wrong. Now it works fine, except the recipient shows up like:
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Thoughts?
The To: header is set by the email client, not by postfix.
The version of postfix you have wi
Thank you. I understand what happened and know how to avoid that. But
I still quite understand the souce code, I will look into the source
code carefully to understand the meanings each hash entry means.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Victor
Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:06:44PM -
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:56:20AM +0800, Lebesgue Yu wrote:
> Thank you. I understand what happened and know how to avoid that. But
> I still quite understand the souce code, I will look into the source
> code carefully to understand the meanings each hash entry means.
No real need to read the c
* GeoffSweet :
> My initial test right now is that I am just relaying SMTP messages into
> our parent companies email servers which I know accept messages.
> However when I try to send a message through my new Postfix relay I get
> denied. For now I am just trying to get it to work with our known
Dear List:
We have got one Ironport appliance for evaluation. It does reputation based
filtering and drops lots of mails. But, we are still running Postfix with
SpamAssassin for Anti-SPAM.
Can Postfix can be integrated with something for reputation based filtering?
Anant Athavale
45 matches
Mail list logo
