Hi guys,
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
Regards,
Jarek
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
> Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
> every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
log message pertains.
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
>
>
>> Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
>> every domain it keeps ?
>>
>
> No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
> log message pertains.
>
Quoting Jaroslaw Grzabel :
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
log message pert
Magnus B?ck:
> On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
>
> > Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
> > every domain it keeps ?
>
> No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
> log message pertains.
Besides, one mes
Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL:
> Hi All,
>
> Because of a crashed exchange server we need to queue messages longer on
> our smarthost then usual.
>
> I want to increase the time messages are queued to at least 2 weeks...
>
> Is changing the 'maximal_queue_lifetime' in main.cf sufficient to
Stan,
Thanks for the reply and showing me a way.
Can you elaborate on your solution ?
Some of my doubts arise from :
>I started my own local block lists
>implemented in various Postfix access tables. It has been very
>effective, especially against snowshoe spammers.
>http://www.postfix.org/ac
Zitat von "Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL" :
Hi All,
Because of a crashed exchange server we need to queue messages longer on
our smarthost then usual.
I want to increase the time messages are queued to at least 2 weeks...
Is changing the 'maximal_queue_lifetime' in main.cf sufficient
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 10:51 +, Jaroslaw Grzabel wrote:
> Magnus Bäck wrote:
> > On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
> >
> >
> >> Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
> >> every domain it keeps ?
> >>
> >
> > No. Postfix needs to
Hi all,
Someo of my mail destinations failing, due to unable to find mx,
However when i DIG i see the mx record, but has a typo ( the remote needs to
fix thier dns )
; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @localhost eurocommerce.ie MX ; (2 servers found) ;;
global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>
Quoting Laurence Moughan :
Hi all,
Someo of my mail destinations failing, due to unable to find mx,
However when i DIG i see the mx record, but has a typo ( the remote
needs to fix thier dns )
My postfix fails to find an mx
(Host or domain name not found. Name service error for
name
ram wrote:
>
> You can write a parser and dump into a database.
> Give every domain a UI to access the database. That is much better.
>
> Thanks
> Ram
> PS:
> The parser may not be so neat because postfix unfortunately does not
> log in sender , recipient , sent and size on a single line
>
Hi,
OK,
Thanks Eero,
But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix be able to
resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are pointing at same ns )
Thanks
Laurence
>>> Eero Volotinen 16/11/09 14:16:51 >>>
Quoting Laurence Moughan :
> Hi all,
>
>
> Someo of my mail dest
Quoting Laurence Moughan :
Thanks Eero,
But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix
be able to resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are
pointing at same ns )
No, ask dns admin to fix that dns zone.
--
Eero
On Monday 16 November 2009 14:27:19 Eero Volotinen wrote:
> Quoting Laurence Moughan :
> > Thanks Eero,
> >
> > But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix
> > be able to resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are
> > pointing at same ns )
>
> No, ask dns admin to f
Possibly make sense for DNS servers to reject such records? I have seen a
proliferation of same, most of which were cut and paste from Google's web
page.
Sounds like very poor dns management, maybe you can change dns service
provider?
--
Eero
On Monday 16 November 2009 15:08:08 Eero Volotinen wrote:
> > Possibly make sense for DNS servers to reject such records? I have seen a
> > proliferation of same, most of which were cut and paste from Google's web
> > page.
>
> Sounds like very poor dns management, maybe you can change dns service
Sharma, Ashish put forth on 11/16/2009 6:23 AM:
> How were you able to identify that a particular IP/IP's are the source of
> spam attack on your mail server?
A trap and a Mark I eyeball, Senderbase reputation data, examining rDNS
within a netblock, etc.
> After identifying that a particular IP
Helo,
I would like that authentified users and users from my network could send email
to wrong adresses because it could be worse to find a wrong address if the mail
is rejected at the smtp connection.
# postconf -n
address_verify_sender = verify_addr...@uclouvain.be
alias_database = hash:/etc/
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/trivial-rewrite p
Dhiraj Chatpar wrote:
> HI,
>
> I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
> via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
>
> Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
> dictionary type: tcp
> Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
Dhiraj Chatpar wrote:
> HI,
>
> I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
> via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
>
> Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
> dictionary type: tcp
> Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
>
Le 16 nov. 2009 à 19:46, Pascal Maes a écrit :
> Helo,
>
> I would like that authentified users and users from my network could send
> email to wrong adresses because it could be worse to find a wrong address if
> the mail is rejected at the smtp connection.
>
> # postconf -n
> address_verify
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connection.
But if u...@myclientsdomain.
Jim Lang:
> OK here is the scenario.
>
> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
> vic...@randomdomain.com
>
> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
> address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connection.
>
> Bu
Dhiraj Chatpar:
> HI,
>
> I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
> via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
>
> Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
> dictionary type: tcp
Use "postconf -m" to see what types of map are supported.
Hi Mr. Wietse,
I using Centos now.. and this is the output
[r...@lsdinkindia ~]# postconf -m
btree
cidr
environ
hash
nis
proxy
regexp
static
unix
It does not show tcp. How do i get the tcp activated on this centos machine
as it alwayz used to be there on my ubuntu machine by default?
Rgds
Dhir
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connec
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Jim Lang:
> >
> >> OK here is the scenario.
> >>
> >> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged
> >> address vic...@randomdomain.com
> >>
> >> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, no
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged
address vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, no
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 02:56:08PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Dhiraj Chatpar:
> > HI,
> >
> > I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
> > via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
> >
> > Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
> > dictionar
Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Jim Lang:
>>
>>> OK here is the scenario.
>>> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
>>> vic...@randomdomain.com
>>>
>>> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if
>>> the a
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:53:14PM -0700, Jim Lang wrote:
> OK here is the scenario.
> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
> vic...@randomdomain.com
>
> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
> address is invalid, postix rejects
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
> John Peach wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
> > Jim Lang wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jim Lang:
> >>>
> >>>
> OK here is the scenario.
>
> Spammer sends mail to: u...@mycl
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclients
Jim Lang pisze:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@mycl
Jaroslaw Grzabel schrieb:
> Jim Lang pisze:
>> John Peach wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
>>> Jim Lang wrote:
>>>
>>>
John Peach wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
> Jim Lang wrote:
>
>
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
This page (http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html)
looks like it describes part of your problem. Could be the solution
Regards
tobi
I had had a lot of troubles with verification database. For example...
new customer is added to SMTP relay, changed MX record to point my
Jim Lang:
> But if mycli...@otherserver.com can for whatever reason not be
> delivered, otherserver.com does what it is supposed to do and
> rejects the mail during the smtp connection, which causes postfix
> to send out a non-delivery report to vic...@randomdomain.com --
>
I get the impression everyone's barking up the wrong tree. Not
surprising, given that the tcp table type is documented thusly: "This
protocol is not available in the stable Postfix release".
2009/11/17 Dhiraj Chatpar :
> I using Centos now.. and this is the output
>
> [r...@lsdinkindia ~]# postcon
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:05:04AM +1100, Barney Desmond wrote:
> I get the impression everyone's barking up the wrong tree. Not
> surprising, given that the tcp table type is documented thusly: "This
> protocol is not available in the stable Postfix release".
Your feeling is probably in error. T
Wietse Venema wrote:
Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what
would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files,
or in a mail distribution list).
Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying addresses
in .forward files?
For list man
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 01:55:46PM +, Laurence Moughan wrote:
> eurocommerce.ie. 3151 IN MX 10 cluster8.eu.messagelabs.com.
> eurocommerce.ie. 3151 IN MX 20 cluster8a.eu.messagelabs.com\032.
>
> See the (\032) trailing commas on the line containing the mx also
> seem to fail me.
The MX reco
Miles Fidelman:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what
> > would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files,
> > or in a mail distribution list).
> >
> >
> Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying address
Folks,
it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding of Jim's setup
and situation.
> Clearly, you are *NOT* doing recipient verification, or
> myotherserver.com would not be rejecting it. Never accept mail which
> cannot be delivered.
What he describes is that the final destination
Postfix versions 2.3 and later skip a DNS record with a bad name.
Unsupported Postfix versions pretend that the lookup failed when
the result is invalid.
Wietse
47 matches
Mail list logo
