Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:11:43PM -0400, sean darcy wrote:
This is way simpler than any of the howto's for gmail relay access. Or the
TLS_README.
It's weird how everyone make this so complicated.
Which part of TLS_README led you astray? In the section on client certi
I have some doubt in receiving email.
What I understand I just need one domain name associated with my server ip
address,
and I need to enter this domain in postfix configuration. That's it.
I don't need to send emails from this server.
I guess that is all I need, can anybody confirm it?
Than
* Arora, Sumit :
> I have some doubt in receiving email.
Postfix is a SMTP server. It transports (read: sends) messages.
If you want to receive messages you need an IMAP or POP server such as
Dovecot, Courier, Cyrus IMAP or ...
p...@rick
>
> What I understand I just need one domain name assoc
What I understand Postfix is a smtp server, it will also receive emails.
What I need is, postfix to receive emails and my component will process those
emails, i don't need to receive emails from my postfix server.
-Sumit
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:ow
* Arora, Sumit :
> What I understand Postfix is a smtp server, it will also receive emails.
correct.
> What I need is, postfix to receive emails and my component will process
> those emails, i don't need to receive emails from my postfix server.
Postfix can do that for you.
Postfix basically ru
Hi,
I have a functioning postfix-2.6.5 upgraded installation running. The
current setup has
virtual_mailbox_base=/var/spool/virutal_mailboxes
and uses postgres to return the remaining portion of the delivery path
(eg. /domain/username/) to append to virtual_mailbox_base to create the
correct d
Thanks a lot Patrick.
Here are my requirements:
- I have to setup my own SMTP server to receive emails (I chose
postfix, sm body referred me)
- Then I have to pass the email body and attachments to a component to
process it.
- My postfix server should be able to receive a
Hi folks,
I am running postfix mail gateways on several UNIXes, and they have the
same or similar configurations.
On my NetBSD gateway I get lots of these errors in the mail log:
spawn[18506]: fatal: spawn_comand: execvp
/usr/local/lib/postfix-policyd-spf-perl: No such file or directory
This
Dirk H. Schulz:
> Hi folks,
>
> I am running postfix mail gateways on several UNIXes, and they have the
> same or similar configurations.
>
> On my NetBSD gateway I get lots of these errors in the mail log:
> > spawn[18506]: fatal: spawn_comand: execvp
> > /usr/local/lib/postfix-policyd-spf-per
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:05:42 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>> wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am seeing a few spams coming through with a from address (seen on my
>>> postfix logs) that does not match the "From" address shown on my users
>>> Outlook. In fact my users are seeing a "From"
Hi Wietse,
Wietse Venema schrieb:
Dirk H. Schulz:
Hi folks,
I am running postfix mail gateways on several UNIXes, and they have the
same or similar configurations.
On my NetBSD gateway I get lots of these errors in the mail log:
spawn[18506]: fatal: spawn_comand: execvp
/usr/local/
On 9/17/2009 9:04 AM, wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
How can I tell then what the envelope looks like?
Postfix logs the envelope address.
Examine the logs for this message; postfix logs it as from
but the From: is my address.
The logs are not showing anything unusual. Here they are:
None
Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
> Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
>
> Wietse
>
/etc/postfix/transport::
yahoo.com slow:
followed by postmap hash:/etc/postfix/transport
I'm sorry, I should have included that this
On Thursday 17 September 2009 12:11:22 AndrewLong wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
> /etc/postfix/transport::
> yahoo.com slow:
>
> followed by postmap hash:/etc/postfix/transport
>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 12:11:22 AndrewLong wrote:
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
>> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
>
>> /etc/postfix/transport::
>> yahoo.com s
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:27:45PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/smtp[27618]: EBC6F87D49:
> to=, relay=e.mx.mail.yahoo.com[216.39.53.1]:25,
> delay=3.7, delays=0.02/0/0.64/3, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok
> dirdel)
> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/qmgr[27609]: EBC6F87D49: r
> On 9/17/2009 9:04 AM, wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> How can I tell then what the envelope looks like?
>
> Postfix logs the envelope address.
> Examine the logs for this message; postfix logs it as from
> but the From: is my address.
>
>> The logs are not showing anything unusual. Here they
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:27:45PM -0400, fursink wrote:
>
>> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/smtp[27618]: EBC6F87D49:
>> to=, relay=e.mx.mail.yahoo.com[216.39.53.1]:25,
>> delay=3.7, delays=0.02/0/0.64/3, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok
>> di
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport from working
> at all?
No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
syslog_name" does not work as expected in 2.3.3. Rather, the syslog_name
is inherited from t
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
>
>> Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport from working
>> at all?
>
> No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
> syslog_name" does not wor
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:06:19PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> >> related - if slow transport is working, will the log show
> >> "postfix/postfix-slow" rather than "postfix/smtp"?
> >
> > No.
>
> Than what is the preferred method to verify that a transport is being used
> for the domain it configured
>> Than what is the preferred method to verify that a transport is being used
>> for the domain it configured for...
>
> Generally, you don't need to verify this. If the transport table is defined
> it is used as advertised. If you absolutely must check:
>
> - Send mail to two users that should
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:20:19PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Then I have to ask, what effect does the "-o syslog_name=postfix-slow"
> have in master.cf?
> I read an old (2006) thread indicating the override does not work, is
> that still true?
It works with Postfix ~2.5 and later.
When "bottom-pos
AndrewLong:
>
>
>
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
> >
> > Wietse
> >
>
> /etc/postfix/transport::
> yahoo.com slow:
>
> followed by postmap hash:/etc/postfix/transport
>
>
On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > from working at all?
>
> No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
> syslog_name" does no
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:52:23AM -0500, John Dubchak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a functioning postfix-2.6.5 upgraded installation running. The
> current setup has
>
> virtual_mailbox_base=/var/spool/virutal_mailboxes
>
> and uses postgres to return the remaining portion of the delivery path
>
On 9/17/2009 12:55 PM, wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Don't confuse the envelope sender as logged by Postfix with
the From: header displayed by your mail client.
Thanks. Is their a way to ensure that these are the same? How can I ensure
that the From: header displayed by my mail clients are no
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:33:01PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > from working at all?
> >
> > No, and in fac
/dev/rob0:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > from working at all?
> >
> > No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
Does anyone maintain a repo for CentOS/RHE packages for some of the
later builds? On Cent 5.3 we're still looking at postfix 3.3, and I
now see there are some fair advantages to an upgrade. I don't really
want to muddle through creating a spec file if someone has been down
this road.
- Andrew
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 14:36 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:52:23AM -0500, John Dubchak wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a functioning postfix-2.6.5 upgraded installation running. The
> > current setup has
> >
> > virtual_mailbox_base=/var/spool/virutal_mailboxes
> >
On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:40:56 Wietse Venema wrote:
> /dev/rob0:
> > On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > > from working at all?
>
On Thursday 17 September 2009 14:14:36 fursink wrote:
> Does anyone maintain a repo for CentOS/RHE packages for some of the
> later builds? On Cent 5.3 we're still looking at postfix 3.3, and I
> now see there are some fair advantages to an upgrade. I don't really
> want to muddle through creating
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:19:02PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> I was asking; I didn't know it was a bug originally. :) I thought it
> was formerly a master(8)-only setting, whereas now, it can be set
> per-daemon with -o.
The daemons processed the option too late for it to actually change the
log t
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:18:04PM -0500, John Dubchak wrote:
> > > I read the documentation that said the default value for
> > > virtual_mailbox_base is blank if it is not present. I wanted to create
> > > a more flexible system and decided to change the query in
> > > virtual_mailbox_maps to r
> Simon Mudd is the man who makes these RPMs. We mirror his site. You can get
> the RPMs here:
> ftp://mirror.newnanutilities.org/pub/postfix-rpm/official/2.6/
That's great, I'd been googl(dir)ected to Simon's site, could not
locate recent releases without your help...
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 15:24 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> If you want to reduce security, set the parameter to "/" as documented.
>
That's not my goal, so it's not a change I'm willing to introduce.
Also, I wasn't aware that I'd be reducing security by doing that, so
thanks for pointing that
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:37:14PM -0500, John Dubchak wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 15:24 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >
> > If you want to reduce security, set the parameter to "/" as documented.
>
> That's not my goal, so it's not a change I'm willing to introduce.
> Also, I wasn't aware
> On 9/17/2009 12:55 PM, wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Don't confuse the envelope sender as logged by Postfix with
>>> the From: header displayed by your mail client.
>>
>> Thanks. Is their a way to ensure that these are the same? How can I ensure
>> that the From: header displayed by my mai
Steve Fatula a écrit :
>> If you do not want to process local mail via SpamAssassin then don't
>> send locally submitted mail to SpamAssassin.
>
> Precisely, and the question was how to recognize locally submitted mail vs
> other mail given that we had to process on delivery via procmail, and, ea
On 2009-09-17 Arora, Sumit wrote:
> Here are my requirements:
> - I have to setup my own SMTP server to receive emails (I chose
> postfix, sm body referred me)
> - Then I have to pass the email body and attachments to a component to
> process it.
> - My postfix server should be able to receive
41 matches
Mail list logo
