I'm just beginning to configure amavisd-new to postfix with clamd. Since
I've never done it before I would like to ask a few questions of the group.
The setup is a simple postfix server serving up to 5 users running on a SuSE
Linux Entreprise Server v11 at the moment. In the documentation it sta
Hi,
I need to create an infrastructure that allows to divide a list of mails to
send among a series of postfix mail servers.
For example, I imagine this situation so :
I install a series of postfix mail servers and when it's necessary to send a
mail it's enough to send it to an IP address that th
2010/2/16 aa :
> Hi,
> I need to create an infrastructure that allows to divide a list of mails to
> send among a series of postfix mail servers.
>
> For example, I imagine this situation so :
> I install a series of postfix mail servers and when it's necessary to send a
> mail it's enough to send
Le 16/02/2010 15:09, aa a écrit :
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
one of them without invoking always the same mail server
It could be an idea, in my opinion, but I'd prefer a "less ran
Jon L Miller:
> postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
Some NON-POSTFIX software is leaving its NON-POSTFIX garbage in
the Postfix queue.
Wietse
martin f krafft:
> % sudo postsuper -d 3DE8FEF5
> postsuper: 3DE8FEF5: removed
> postsuper: Deleted: 1 message
And that removed the file while Postfix was already delivering it.
Unlike MSDOS and its successors, UNIX systems allow a file to be
removed while it is open. The file storage is re
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will
choose one of them without invoking always the same mail server
It could be an idea, in my opinion, but I'd prefer a "le
> Jon L Miller:
> > postfix/postsuper[4932]: warning: bogus file name: hold/razor-agent.log
>
> Some NON-POSTFIX software is leaving its NON-POSTFIX garbage in
> the Postfix queue.
Sounds like a MailScanner issue.
Mark
On 2/15/2010 6:10 PM, joel.rosen...@imdea.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have one mail server running postfix and own a domain (foo.com),
> i've noticed that when i try to send an email to the "outside" (other
> domains different than mine) i have to authenticate myself against the
> server in order to be
I'm trying to avoid that somebody can connect to the email server and
then send any email to my users without having to authenticate first.
Right now, when i connect to it and try to send an email to the outside
it ask me for password (which is fine), but if i try to send an email to
anybody insid
donovan jeffrey j ha scritto:
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
>
>> Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
>> defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
>> one of them without invoking always the same mail server
>> It could be a
Depends on how many public IP addresses you have. I'd like recommend you
to have a try with keepalived. It's the balancing service software. Open
source. The front-end service keepalived will handle TCP request and
forward to the back-end servers you have. You can also setup the filter
also. Pr
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Massimo Nuvoli wrote:
donovan jeffrey j ha scritto:
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will
choose
one of them without invoking al
2010/2/16 donovan jeffrey j :
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Massimo Nuvoli wrote:
>
>> donovan jeffrey j ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
>>>
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS
Massimo Nuvoli:
> donovan jeffrey j ha scritto:
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
> >
> >> Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
> >> defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
> >> one of them without invoking always the same ma
On 16/02/2010 15:53, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Well, It is bad because server (client) can cache ip address for long
time and then one of your smtp server fails. It can take long time
before server gets ip address of working smtp server..
The client is faulty in that case. If it fails to contact
Le 16/02/2010 17:47, donovan jeffrey j a écrit :
DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
Again, I am doing every days exactly what required at
Use your favorite load-balance app. You have several options in BSD or
GNU/Linux flavors. Personally I use with total success LVS+heartbeat to
load-balance 3 Posfifix (only to send) with 70k account behind.
;)
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:13:11PM +1000, P1aGu3 wrote:
> For example:
> The organisation has mydomain.com as their $mydomain.
> They email someone at postfix.org. Or someone from postfix.org emails
> someone at mydomain.com
> The filter box matches the To/From as not being in $mydomain and create
Quoting Massimo Nuvoli :
donovan jeffrey j ha scritto:
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
one of them without invoking always the same mail server
I
> No indication that the user authenticated. When someone
> authenticates you'll get a log line something like
> Feb 12 09:24:06 mgate2 postfix/smtpd[93626]: E4E077978A8:
> client=user.example.org[192.168.1.163], sasl_method=CRAM-MD5,
> sasl_username=username
Ive been looking at this for a cou
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 04:56:44PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 13.2.2010, at 0.41, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > No, this is largely irrelevant. What matters is the IMAP performance
> > they expect, that IMAP servers are reasonably CPU and memory intensive.
>
> From what I've seen is that IM
Jeff Lacki(j...@rahul.net)@Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:37:24AM -0800:
(stuff)
> Feb 17 13:29:05 202010-1 postfix/smtpd[21553]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> 99-74-xxx-xxx.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net[99.74.xxx.xxx]: 554 5.7.1
> hul.net>: Relay access denied; from= to=
> proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't. Experts Exchange is such a complete scam that I have it
blocked in my local /etc/hosts and excluded from google search results.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Michele Carandente
wrote:
>> But you can and should queue only deliverable messages (postfix will
>> do this if you haven't broked the configuration).
>
> How?
> I have not a standard configuration of postfix.
> This is part of the main.cf:
>
> mydestination = loca
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
> On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
>> Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
>
> No it isn't.
Yes it is. It's also viewable if you change your browser's user agent
string to that of a search engine spider. How else do you think the
On 2/16/2010 12:37 PM, Jeff Lacki wrote:
No indication that the user authenticated. When someone
authenticates you'll get a log line something like
Feb 12 09:24:06 mgate2 postfix/smtpd[93626]: E4E077978A8:
client=user.example.org[192.168.1.163], sasl_method=CRAM-MD5,
sasl_username=username
Ive
I did round robin. Unless your servers are really under a high load I think
this is more then suitable.
James
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:51 AM, donovan jeffrey j wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
>
>> Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
>> defined
Noel Jones wrote:
And did postfix log that this session authenticated?
Noand I think I see the problem, but not sure where it is.
When I telnet localhost 25 and authenticate I get:
Feb 17 15:19:42 202010-1 postfix/smtpd[23113]: connect from
localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1]
Feb 17 15:20:12
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 09:25:12PM +0100, Stefan Palme wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
> > in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc.
>
> Ok, but if I have a very
On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
The link you posted had no visible answer. It had a banner about
signing up
I want a method of silently and transperantly archiving emails based on
external domain. I want each domain to be associated with a customer, and
each customer may have multiple domains.
I want to use Exchange Public folders for storing this archive, with each
customer becoming a mail enabled publ
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:31:38AM +1000, P1aGu3 wrote:
> I want to use Exchange Public folders for storing this archive, with each
> customer becoming a mail enabled public folder, with multiple email
> addresses assigned to that folder based on their external domain, i.e.
> microsoft@mydomai
Hello
I would like to accept mail from only one domain "smtp.domaineok.com"
This is my main.cf
smtpd_helo_restrictions = check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access,
reject_invalid_hostname,
reject_unknown_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetwor
* Manu :
> Hello
>
> I would like to accept mail from only one domain "smtp.domaineok.com"
>
> This is my main.cf
>
> smtpd_helo_restrictions = check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access,
> reject_invalid_hostname,
> reject_unknown_hostname,
> reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
>
> smtpd_recipient_
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> The link you posted had no
On 2/16/2010 2:43 PM, Jeff Lacki wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
And did postfix log that this session authenticated?
Noand I think I see the problem, but not sure where it is.
When I telnet localhost 25 and authenticate I get:
Feb 17 15:19:42 202010-1 postfix/smtpd[23113]: connect from
localhos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:46:31PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks,
> > check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access,
> > permit_sasl_authenticated,
> > reject_unauth_destination,
> > reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> > reject_unk
* Victor Duchovni :
> > The key "*" is not defined (man 5 access)
> > Are you sure using the HELO is a smart idea?
>
> The OP is not using a HELO check, it is a "check_client_access" check.
He was using it twice, once for helo, once for the client:
smtpd_helo_restrictions = check_helo_access ha
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:11:54PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Victor Duchovni :
>
> > > The key "*" is not defined (man 5 access)
> > > Are you sure using the HELO is a smart idea?
> >
> > The OP is not using a HELO check, it is a "check_client_access" check.
>
> He was using it twice,
That fixed it. I knew it would be something
simple, in the end it usually is.
Thanks so much Noel!
Hi,
I have recently inherited a postfix mailserver that accepts undeliverable mail
and am trying to resolve this issue.
I have read http://www.postfix.org/LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README.html and tried to
impliment the suggestions there, however, it is becoming more apparent I am out
of my depth.
Our
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
> > On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
> >>> On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
> Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
> >>>
> >>> N
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
> I have recently inherited a postfix mailserver that accepts
> undeliverable mail and am trying to resolve this issue.
>
> I have read http://www.postfix.org/LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README.html and
> tried to impliment the suggestions there, however, it is bec
On 02/16/2010 08:08 AM, Joel Rosental R. wrote:
> I'm trying to avoid that somebody can connect to the email server and
> then send any email to my users without having to authenticate first.
>
So you don't want to receive mail from the internet? There is no way
possible to force all hosts to a
We've some features (such as DKIM signing) we'd like to deploy, but
currently the only program that meets our requirements is OpenDKIM, which
is available as a before-queue milter. However, we've a concern about
using such milters, specifically, if the milter is broken or times out lots
of ema
also sprach Wietse Venema [2010.02.17.0241 +1300]:
> And that removed the file while Postfix was already delivering it.
>
> Unlike MSDOS and its successors, UNIX systems allow a file to be
> removed while it is open. The file storage is recycled after the
> last program closes the file.
So killi
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> We've some features (such as DKIM signing) we'd like to deploy, but
> currently the only program that meets our requirements is OpenDKIM,
> which is available as a before-queue milter. However, we've a
> concern about using such milters, specifica
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> We've some features (such as DKIM signing) we'd like to deploy, but
> currently the only program that meets our requirements is OpenDKIM, which
> is available as a before-queue milter. However, we've a concern about
> using such milters, specifically, if the milter is bro
--On Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:51 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
We've some features (such as DKIM signing) we'd like to deploy, but
currently the only program that meets our requirements is OpenDKIM,
which is available as a before-queue milter. However, we've a conce
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:08:21PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>> I noticed in the release notes that Postfix 2.7 receives the full
>>> message before sending it to the before-queue milter, but I don't think
>>> this addresses the concern.
>>
>> Milter applications see SMTP commands as th
Is it standard practice to have the filter: permit_my _networks at the top
of a listing? Also having the filter permit at the bottom what is the reason
and the difference between the two filters.
Jon
--On Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:13 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 06:08:21PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I noticed in the release notes that Postfix 2.7 receives the full
message before sending it to the before-queue milter, but I don't
think this addresse
I migrated an 8 year old mail server this morning, I can check mail
fine but I have not succeeded in sending mail. Here is a summary of
what I am getting, what I am running, and my conf files.
Any help is appreciated, I've been at it for 8 hours now.
Thanks
Feb 16 20:39:41 mail postfix/smtpd[29
* Jon L Miller :
> Is it standard practice to have the filter: permit_my _networks at the top
> of a listing? Also having the filter permit at the bottom what is the reason
> and the difference between the two filters.
If, by "filters" you are referring to "smtpd_mumble_restrictions", or,
more spe
55 matches
Mail list logo
