Hello,
One more info, maybe we can solve the source of the problem
When I use related syntax
sql_hostnames: (212.58.4.247:3306,212.58.4.245:3306)
I got related error and next server are queried. interesting, looks like sasl
or postfix I don't know which one but they care about ":"
Nov 23 23:
Vahriç,
* Vahriç Muhtaryan :
> One more info, maybe we can solve the source of the problem
>
> When I use related syntax
>
> sql_hostnames: (212.58.4.247:3306,212.58.4.245:3306)
>
> I got related error and next server are queried. interesting, looks like sasl
> or postfix I don't know which o
Thanks so far,
the "funny" thing about the sending Mailserver is, that the MX for the domain
in question is:
forward : mail.bbb.com -> ddd.dd.ddd.70
reverse : ddd.dd.ddd.70 -> mail.bbb.com
BUT
the mail is delivered via ddd.dd.ddd.66
Might it be a problem of wrong NATing on "their" side?
Th
On 12/1/2009, Ali Majdzadeh (ali.majdza...@gmail.com) wrote:
> We use Postfix, courier-imap,
Highly recommend you use dovecot instead of courier-imap - dovecot is
*much* faster and more robust, and getting better every day.
On 11/30/2009, techlist06 (techlis...@msws.org) wrote:
> So, if they click on "reply" in their client, the reply message should be
> sent to maillist_nore...@mydomain.com. My end accepts it (through spam
> filters), but then rejects the address with my custom reject message via my
> new access tab
Hi folks,
I'm using postfix for just receiving emails from network, do I need to enable
TLS or anything else for building up a secure channel.
I guess all this is required in case of my email clients connecting to my email
server.
Thanks & Regards,
Sumit Arora
IPG R&D Hub, Gurgaon
Hewlett-Packa
Quoting "Arora, Sumit" :
Hi folks,
I'm using postfix for just receiving emails from network, do I need
to enable TLS or anything else for building up a secure channel.
I guess all this is required in case of my email clients connecting
to my email server.
Yes, enable TLS and only allow
Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
Postfix/dovecot mail system.
Background:
We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the world of
Linux and its software is new to us all. We used th
>You are NOT 'rejecting', you are ACCEPTING, then BOUNCING, which you
>should never do if you can possibly help it. Reject it at smtp time.
>
>Why waste system resources scanning messages you will later bounce?
I understand your point. Thank you for correcting my syntax. FWIW, this
will only ha
Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
Postfix/dovecot mail system.
Background:
We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the world of
Linux and its software is new to us all. We used th
Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
political infighting going on recently which makes us a little nervous
about its future. In addition we have found that a number of the core
packages we wish to use are out of date (postfix, dovecot, amavisd-new
among them).
C
Eero Volotinen wrote:
Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
political infighting going on recently which makes us a little nervous
about its future. In addition we have found that a number of the core
packages we wish to use are out of date (postfix, dovecot, amavi
On 12/1/2009 9:09 AM, John wrote:
Fedora - a little too dynamic for use as a server. This is to be
expected as it is a development system which I don't think is aimed at a
production like environment, plus the latest release seems very desktop
oriented.
FC supposedly changes too much. I might
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> > Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
> > political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
> > nervous about its future. In addition we have found that a number
> > of the core packages we
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:39 AM, John Peach wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> > Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
>> > political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
>> > nervous about its future. In addition we
> Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
> political infighting going on recently which makes us a little nervous
> about its future. In addition we have found that a number of the core
> packages we wish to use are out of date (postfix, dovecot, amavisd-new
> among the
I am getting a report from someone on my network that they are getting
delivery failures when attempting to send an email from my Postfix
server to the remote mail server. I see the message stuck on my
Postfix servers queue:
CB87E778055 1337 Mon Nov 30 08:59:15 tprem...@iamghost.com
On 12/1/2009 9:09 AM, John wrote:
> Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
> Postfix/dovecot mail system.
>
> Background:
> We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
> have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the world of
> Linu
Carlos Williams wrote:
CB87E778055 1337 Mon Nov 30 08:59:15 tprem...@iamghost.com
(connect to a.mx.premore.net[198.186.193.20]: No route to host)
However my mail server wont send to this destination address and I
have no idea why. Can someone tell me how I can better exami
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:03:21AM -0500, Carlos Williams wrote:
> CB87E778055 1337 Mon Nov 30 08:59:15 tprem...@iamghost.com
>(connect to a.mx.premore.net[198.186.193.20]: No route to host)
> b...@premore.net
Looks like more of a net
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:03 -0500, Carlos Williams wrote:
> I am getting a report from someone on my network that they are getting
> delivery failures when attempting to send an email from my Postfix
> server to the remote mail server. I see the message stuck on my
> Postfix servers queue:
>
> CB
* Carlos Williams :
> I am getting a report from someone on my network that they are getting
> delivery failures when attempting to send an email from my Postfix
> server to the remote mail server. I see the message stuck on my
> Postfix servers queue:
>
> CB87E778055 1337 Mon Nov 30 08:59:15
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:03:21 -0500, you wrote:
>I am getting a report from someone on my network that they are getting
>delivery failures when attempting to send an email from my Postfix
>server to the remote mail server. I see the message stuck on my
>Postfix servers queue:
>
>CB87E778055 133
* Evan Platt :
> Unless I'm misreading and misunderstanding your logs
>
> # telnet 198.186.193.20 25
> Trying 198.186.193.20...
> telnet: connect to address 198.186.193.20: Operation timed out
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
>
> The mail server on that IP isn't answering.
# telne
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:13:02 +0100, you wrote:
># telnet 198.186.193.20 25
>Trying 198.186.193.20...
>Connected to 198.186.193.20.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>220 share.docforge.org ESMTP Postfix
D'oh... Forgot which machine I was connected to.I tried it on the one
that has port 25 blocked by the
John wrote:
> Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
> Postfix/dovecot mail system.
>
> Background:
> We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
> have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the world of
> Linux and its software is
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> Works OK. What does tracroute 198.186.193.20 return?
> # traceroute 198.186.193.20
> traceroute to 198.186.193.20 (198.186.193.20), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> ... snip ...
> 4 zr-pot1-te0-0-0-3.x-win.dfn.de (188.1.144.30) 5.288 ms
On 12/1/2009 10:08 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>
> I personally use Gentoo for all my Linux needs.
I wasn't going to say anything, but I'll add a 'me too' here.
I've been using Gentoo only for our in house servers since 2005. They've
all been through 2 major GCC version updates, and I'
* Carlos Williams :
> > 25 dns5.docforge.org (198.186.193.20) 4.241 ms 1.685 ms 0.271 ms
>
> I am unable to connect via Telnet so it appears to be a network / ISP issue.
>
> car...@tunafish:~$ telnet 198.186.193.20 25
> Trying 198.186.193.20...
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 12/1/2009 10:08 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I personally use Gentoo for all my Linux needs.
I wasn't going to say anything, but I'll add a 'me too' here.
Are you really using lot of servers (like 100 pieces) with gentoo on
production environment?
--
Eer
Terry L. Inzauro wrote:
> John wrote:
>
>> Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
>> Postfix/dovecot mail system.
>>
>> Background:
>> We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
>> have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the
On 12/1/2009, Eero Volotinen (eero.voloti...@iki.fi) wrote:
> Are you really using lot of servers (like 100 pieces) with gentoo on
> production environment?
No, only 3 - what made you think 'our in-house servers' meant hundreds?
I do know a few people who manage them in the hundreds with some cus
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> What is the output of traceroute 198.186.193.20 ?
I get no results from my mail server:
traceroute to 198.186.193.20 (198.186.193.20), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
.
.
.
29 * * *
30 * *
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:51:31AM -0500, John wrote:
> Terry L. Inzauro wrote:
> > When it comes down to it, the best distro is the one "you" know
> > how to use. I would start with a distro that you are most
> > comfortable with and know how to use the best.
+1 ... I started on Slackware and
On 01/12/2009 14:09, John wrote:
Sorry to bring this here, but we are having trouble setting up a
Postfix/dovecot mail system.
Background:
We are a bunch of retirees, so cost is a factor in any decision. We all
have IT experience, some of going back decades, however the world of
Linux and its so
Perhaps your mail server is on a DNSBL?
Regards
Frog
- Original Message -
From: "Carlos Williams"
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009 4:05:25 PM
Subject: Re: What Is Causing This Failure
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> What is the o
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 16:27 +, Frog wrote:
> Perhaps your mail server is on a DNSBL?
>
> Regards
> Frog
Nope, this is a problem at the ip level, routing. This is not a postfix
or mail/smtp issue.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Carlos Williams"
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent
Frog wrote:
> Perhaps your mail server is on a DNSBL?
>
> Regards
> Frog
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Carlos Williams"
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009 4:05:25 PM
> Subject: Re: What Is Causing This Failure
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ra
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 12:37:47PM +, Arora, Sumit wrote:
> I'm using postfix for just receiving emails from network, do I need
> to enable TLS or anything else for building up a secure channel.
> I guess all this is required in case of my email clients connecting
> to my email server.
Your q
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Terry L. Inzauro
wrote:
>
> why all the off topic posts today?
I suspected this to be Postfix or Mail related so I posted here. It
was determined with the help of the list it was not a MTA issue.
Simple as that!
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Ali Majdzadeh put forth on 12/1/2009 12:25 AM:
> Dear friends,
> Thanks for this nice discussion. Actually, as a project, we are going to
> deliver an e-mail architecture which supports over 100 users. We use
> Postfix, courier-imap, amavisd-new, spamassassin and clamav and of
> course the tool
Stan,
Thank you a lot for all these valuable information. Your reply proved that
there exists some circumstances where nothing can help but experience.
Thanks again.
Regarding the points which had mentioned in your mail, I would like to ask a
question concerning what Wietse proposed. Does the usage
John Peach wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>
>>> Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
>>> political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
>>> nervous about its future. In addition we have found that a number
>>>
John put forth on 12/1/2009 9:51 AM:
> I took a quick look at Debian, but as it was very similar to Ubuntu
> (which I know is based on Debian) it looked to have the same problems
> from our perspective. An example, from the Postfix setup was the
> replacement of the LMTP process binary with a syml
Carlos Williams put forth on 12/1/2009 9:32 AM:
> I am unable to connect via Telnet so it appears to be a network / ISP issue.
>
> car...@tunafish:~$ telnet 198.186.193.20 25
> Trying 198.186.193.20...
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
Definitely a network problem betw
Ali Majdzadeh:
> question concerning what Wietse proposed. Does the usage of milter help? I
> mean, is the milter architecture considered as a way to kill spam load
> _before_ piping inbound connections to AS/AV content filter daemons? Or,
Milter is a way to inspect or update message content witho
Carlos Williams put forth on 12/1/2009 10:05 AM:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>> What is the output of traceroute 198.186.193.20 ?
>
> I get no results from my mail server:
>
> traceroute to 198.186.193.20 (198.186.193.20), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 * * *
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:39:06 -0500 John Peach wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
>Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>>
>> > Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
>> > political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
>> > nervous about its future. In addi
Wietse,
Hi
Thanks for your reply. I recall that I had read about another filtering
option available in Postfix which was called smtpd_proxy_filter (if I spell
it correctly) and which filtered messages before queuing. So, is there any
difference between the so-called method and using Milter?
Thanks
Ali Majdzadeh:
> Wietse,
> Hi
> Thanks for your reply. I recall that I had read about another filtering
> option available in Postfix which was called smtpd_proxy_filter (if I spell
> it correctly) and which filtered messages before queuing. So, is there any
> difference between the so-called metho
Wietse,
Thanks for all these useful points. I will inform the list about the results
of our tests regarding the issue.
Warm Regards
Ali Majdzadeh Kohbanani
2009/12/1 Wietse Venema
> Ali Majdzadeh:
> > Wietse,
> > Hi
> > Thanks for your reply. I recall that I had read about another filtering
> >
Scott Kitterman put forth on 12/1/2009 12:22 PM:
> I am in favor of Ubuntu Server for Postfix related uses. Postfix is the
> standard MTA, so it's use is well documented, pretty much everything you
> might want to add on to Postfix is packaged so there's no need to hunt down
> external reposito
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Half your argument is based on Debian features.
Which are also, therefore, ubuntu features.
> Why not just use Debian
> then, instead of Ubuntu?
Because enterprise support is available for ubuntu, and also, if someone
is familiar with ubuntu desktop already it makes sens
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/1/2009 1:20 PM:
> If your performance is inadequate, I suggest that you do a detailed
> system performance analysis to find out if the limit is CPU, memory,
> file I/O or perhaps some trivial DNS configuration problem.
That may be difficult for the OP to provide. Fr
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Joe wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I've been a
>> Debian (non-GUI) user for almost 10 years. I've never touched Ubuntu,
>> or any other distro. Debian has always come through for my server
>> needs, so I've never considered anything else. Convince me why I shou
Brian Mathis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Joe wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I've been a
Debian (non-GUI) user for almost 10 years. I've never touched Ubuntu,
or any other distro. Debian has always come through for my server
needs, so I've never considered anything else. Convince me
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 12/1/2009 1:20 PM:
>
> > If your performance is inadequate, I suggest that you do a detailed
> > system performance analysis to find out if the limit is CPU, memory,
> > file I/O or perhaps some trivial DNS configuration problem.
>
> That may be difficu
Udo Rader wrote:
> Brian Mathis wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I've been a
Debian (non-GUI) user for almost 10 years. I've never touched Ubuntu,
or any other distro. Debian has always come through for my server
needs, so I've nev
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/1/2009 3:47 PM:
> Surely, mail is injected via SMTP, and therefore, the Postfix SMTP
> server will attempt to lookup the client hostname and IP address;
> since they are using SMTP-based content filters, that is another
> source of name service lookups. All this pres
Thank you all for your input, having looked at the responses and
discussed amongst ourselves and as I am the grunt doing the work, we
will probably go with Centos.
Some of our reasoning was, it close to Fedora so we have some
experience, there are several third party repositories that carry the
"la
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 12/1/2009 3:47 PM:
>
> > Surely, mail is injected via SMTP, and therefore, the Postfix SMTP
> > server will attempt to lookup the client hostname and IP address;
> > since they are using SMTP-based content filters, that is another
> > source of name serv
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/1/2009 6:17 PM:
> I would not be so quick to dismiss DNS-related problems out of hand
> in scenarios that involve synthetic email messages.
Ok, I follow you now Wietse. Given the inbound mail load he's
generating, the DNS resolvers in his test environment may not be
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, John wrote:
> Thank you all for your input, having looked at the responses and
> discussed amongst ourselves and as I am the grunt doing the work, we
> will probably go with Centos.
> Some of our reasoning was, it close to Fedora so we have some
> experience, there
freebsd 7.2
mail_version = 2.7-20091008
out of 6 postscreen machines, I've got one that every 20 or 30 minutes just
halts, port 25 is dead (several monit agents see it dead), then it starts off
by itself after a few minutes, dumping a bunch of these in maillog:
warning: postscreen_dnsbl_query:
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Terry L. Inzauro wrote:
> Personally, Debian Stable (currently Lenny) is my Linux of choice for
> production system. Package management via apt is second to none and
> everything is very well documented with a willing and able community for
> support.
>
>
> Why resta
David Koski put forth on 12/1/2009 10:45 PM:
> For example, doing a distribution upgrade
> has rendered a system unbootable and made me boot from CD to fix it. I have
> never had a problem upgrading Debian. I have even upgraded several remotely
> without a problem. Try upgrading RH 3 to 4 to
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/30/2009 3:56 PM:
The cost of a modern plenty powerful (CPU/memory) 1U server with a
couple of fast sata disks is around $1000-2000, paid _once_ with no
recurring licensing fees as all the software is FOSS, with minimal power
usage, maybe $100/y
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> BTW, don't you really mean?
>
> # apt-get purge exim
> # apt-get install postfix
Last I tried I couldn't remove the MTA without replacement. The
onliner "apt-get --purge install postfix" installs postfix and purges exim
without complaining abo
Quoting David Koski :
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
BTW, don't you really mean?
# apt-get purge exim
# apt-get install postfix
Last I tried I couldn't remove the MTA without replacement. The
onliner "apt-get --purge install postfix" installs postfix and purges exim
witho
David Koski wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> BTW, don't you really mean?
>>
>> # apt-get purge exim
>> # apt-get install postfix
>
> Last I tried I couldn't remove the MTA without replacement. The
> onliner "apt-get --purge install postfix" installs postfix and purge
Quoting Eero Volotinen :
Quoting David Koski :
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
BTW, don't you really mean?
# apt-get purge exim
# apt-get install postfix
Last I tried I couldn't remove the MTA without replacement. The
onliner "apt-get --purge install postfix" installs pos
71 matches
Mail list logo
