During my internal performance tests I noticed the fsstone program and
wondered what became of your ide to use append/truncate instead of
generating new queuefiles.
>From http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2004-07/0991.html
"Early measurements have shown that disk overhead
can be redu
On 2010-03-28 8:15 PM, Daniel L'Hommedieu wrote:
> And, I didn't mean to hijack the thread earlier - I meant to change
> the subject line - oops...
Changing the subject line of an existing thread to start a new thread is
*the definition* of hijacking a thread.
When you want to start a new thread,
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> During my internal performance tests I noticed the fsstone program and
> wondered what became of your ide to use append/truncate instead of
> generating new queuefiles.
>
> From http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2004-07/0991.html
>
> "Early measurements have shown
Patric Falinder skrev 2010-03-24 12:00:
Ansgar Wiechers skrev 2010-03-24 11:49:
On 2010-03-24 Patric Falinder wrote:
If I have a subdomain that I need to do this with, sub.domain.com,
should it he like this then?
/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
if /@sub\.domain\.com/
/^...@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@
Patric Falinder:
> > ah, I changed that but now I get this error message:
> >
> > warning: regexp map /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc, line 1: using empty
> > replacement string
> > warning: recipient_bcc_maps lookup of patric.falin...@sub.domain.com
> > returns an empty string result
> > warning: recip
El sáb, 27-03-2010 a las 17:11 +0100, mouss escribió:
> Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago a écrit :
> > El vie, 26-03-2010 a las 12:06 +0100, Wietse Venema escribió:
> >> Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago:
> >> > I had configured default_destination_recipient_limit to 1500 and I
> >> > couldn't send an email de
Hi Postfix users,
there is an internally used development server with a fairly default
postfix installation. For testing software I want to have postfix listen
on an additional port and every mail incoming on this port should not be
delivered as usual but instead being forwarded to a single addres
Patric Falinder:
> /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
> /@sub\.domain\.com/
> /^(.*)@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@new.sub.domain.com
That first line has no result value.
Wietse
Wietse Venema skrev 2010-03-29 14:47:
Patric Falinder:
/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
/@sub\.domain\.com/
/^(.*)@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@new.sub.domain.com
That first line has no result value.
Wietse
What should I set the result value to?
I got this example from the mailinglist so I did
* Patric Falinder :
> Wietse Venema skrev 2010-03-29 14:47:
> >Patric Falinder:
> >>/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
> >>/@sub\.domain\.com/
> >>/^(.*)@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@new.sub.domain.com
> >
> >That first line has no result value.
> >
> > Wietse
> What should I set the result value to?
> I g
Wietse Venema skrev 2010-03-29 14:15:
Patric Falinder:
ah, I changed that but now I get this error message:
warning: regexp map /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc, line 1: using empty
replacement string
warning: recipient_bcc_maps lookup of patric.falin...@sub.domain.com
returns an empty string result
Hi,
I am using an (insanely) long pcre (see below) to reject
african/chinese/etc. spam that relays through large ISP's. An now it
seems I have reached a limit. When trying to add a single more
expression with a set of () parens I get this error:
postmap: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/hea
On 2010-03-29 Patric Falinder wrote:
> Wietse Venema skrev 2010-03-29 14:47:
>> Patric Falinder:
>>> /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
>>> /@sub\.domain\.com/
>>> /^(.*)@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@new.sub.domain.com
>>
>> That first line has no result value.
>
> What should I set the result value to?
> I go
Patric Falinder:
> /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc:
> /@sub\.domain\.com/
> /^(.*)@sub\.domain\.com$/ $...@new.sub.domain.com
Wietse Venema skrev 2010-03-29 14:47:
> That first line has no result value.
Patric Falinder:
> What should I set the result value to?
> I got this example from the mailinglist
Louis-David Mitterrand:
> Hi,
>
> I am using an (insanely) long pcre (see below) to reject
> african/chinese/etc. spam that relays through large ISP's. An now it
> seems I have reached a limit. When trying to add a single more
> expression with a set of () parens I get this error:
>
> postm
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:54:47 +0200
> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: max length of pcre rule?
> Hi,
>
Hello,
> I am using an (insanely) long pcre (see below) to reject
> african/chinese/etc. spam that relays thr
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:49 +0200
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:54:47 +0200
> > Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> > An: postf
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Steve wrote:
>
> >
> Ohhh boy. Now looking at the regexp I see an error. Every line
> starting with "/[^:]*.+" should be replaced by "/[^:]*:.+". Sorry for
> that.
>
Hi Steve,
You if/endif suggestion for the prefix is interesting.
For added safety, th
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Ohhh boy. Now looking at the regexp I see a
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:13:31AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Louis-David Mitterrand:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using an (insanely) long pcre (see below) to reject
> > african/chinese/etc. spam that relays through large ISP's. An now it
> > seems I have reached a limit. When trying to add a single m
Hi !
Is there a possibility to configure postfix to send an email
notification to the sender and receiver of an email, which is not
accepted because of exceeding the message size limit ?
We have a client, who wants to get notified if someone send him an
email, which was rejected because of the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:32:23PM +0200, Dirk Taggesell wrote:
> there is an internally used development server with a fairly
> default postfix installation. For testing software I want to
> have postfix listen on an additional port and every mail
> incoming on this port should not be delivered a
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Ohhh boy. Now looking at the regexp I see a
I've been fighting with it for a long time but still can't get the desirable:
- forward all local mail sent to valid unix users (+postmaster and
abuse redirects of course) to specific email address.
I.e. forward all mail sent to:
[any-valid-unix-name-from-etc-pass...@[any-ip-address-of-the-host]
[
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:12:58 +0200
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> > Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> > An: postf
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:19PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> > You if/endif suggestion for the prefix is interesting.
> >
> > For added safety, the individual rules should be anchored with ^ and the
> > bracketed atom plussed, no?
> >
> > /^[^:]+:.+
> >
> Yes. You are right. But to be honest this sh
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:16:39PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> Ach. Again. I made errors. Sorry. It's hard to write here in such a
> small edit box in a web interface. The above is not 100% correct. What
> I wanted to write is:
You need the 'itsalltext' firefox extension to edit any web textarea
wi
(although I'm subscribed, please Cc: me on replies for a quicker
turnaround -- also, the list appears to drop messages from non-subscribers
silently, rather than bouncing them. If it was held for moderation, sorry...)
Greetings,
I have observed a very strange behaviour related to the DST switch
y
Hi,
Does anyone have logrotate working correctly for maillog on a weekly basis?
I'm not sure if its my logrotate config:
/var/log/maillog {
rotate 100
compress
weekly
dateext
notifempty
copytruncate
postrotate
/etc/init.d/postfix reload
endscript
}
Can someone who has this working correc
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:19PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> > > You if/endif suggestion for the prefix is interesting.
> > >
> > > For added safety, the individual rules should be anchored with ^ and the
> > > bracketed atom pl
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:54:54AM -0400, James R. Marcus wrote:
> Does anyone have logrotate working correctly for maillog on a
> weekly basis? I'm not sure if its my logrotate config:
It is.
> /var/log/maillog {
> rotate 100
> compress
> weekly
> dateext
> notifempty
> copytruncate
> postrota
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:00:36 +0300
> Von: Henrik K
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:55:19PM +0200, Steve wrot
Hello,
Lately I had been getting bounce email ( spam), I do not know how to
effectively proceed to solve this problem. Below is the actual email that
one of the users is getting constantly, the spam filer is unable to
detected. The administrator said we can't do nothing other than create a
rule i
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:13:15PM +0200, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:00:36 +0300
> > Von: Henrik K
> > An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> > Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
>
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David Mit
On 3/29/2010 11:23 AM, motty.cruz wrote:
Hello,
Lately I had been getting bounce email ( spam), I do not know how to
effectively proceed to solve this problem. Below is the actual email
that one of the users is getting constantly, the spam filer is unable to
detected. The administrator said we c
Matthias Andree:
> and timezone are wrong, timezone name is missing). Interestingly, the time
> logged in Received: is correct. I would have hoped that the Date: header
> produces the same timestamp as in the Received: header.
...
> Return-Path: <>
> X-Original-To: ma+direct
> Delivered-To: ma+dir.
Robert Bude:
> Hi !
>
> Is there a possibility to configure postfix to send an email
> notification to the sender and receiver of an email, which is not
> accepted because of exceeding the message size limit ?
> We have a client, who wants to get notified if someone send him an
> email, which w
Wietse Venema wrote on 2010-03-29:
> Matthias Andree:
>> and timezone are wrong, timezone name is missing). Interestingly, the
>> time
>> logged in Received: is correct. I would have hoped that the Date: header
>> produces the same timestamp as in the Received: header.
> ...
>> Return-Path: <>
>
Charlie Root a écrit :
> I've been fighting with it for a long time but still can't get the desirable:
> - forward all local mail sent to valid unix users (+postmaster and
> abuse redirects of course) to specific email address.
>
> I.e. forward all mail sent to:
> [any-valid-unix-name-from-etc-pas
Hello.
One spammer has tried about 300 times send me email, always from the
same address, but from about 20 different IP . Never pass verify sender,
always get 450 errormy question is...when one email fail postfix
verify_sender 4 or 5 times..will be possible auto-blacklist this email
for one
* Josep M. :
> Hello.
>
> One spammer has tried about 300 times send me email, always from the
> same address, but from about 20 different IP . Never pass verify sender,
> always get 450 errormy question is...when one email fail postfix
> verify_sender 4 or 5 times..will be possible auto-blac
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:34:56PM +0200, Josep M. wrote:
> Hello.
>
> One spammer has tried about 300 times send me email, always from the
> same address, but from about 20 different IP . Never pass verify sender,
> always get 450 errormy question is...when one email fail postfix
> verify_se
On 3/29/2010 3:34 PM, Josep M. wrote:
> Hello.
>
> One spammer has tried about 300 times send me email, always from the
> same address, but from about 20 different IP . Never pass verify sender,
> always get 450 errormy question is...when one email fail postfix
> verify_sender 4 or 5 times..wi
I know it's overkill, but I run my own postfix (2.6.2) on my server at
home. My domain, my mail. Just me.
Just switched to IMAP, and figured I'd also like to sync filtering
rules, so best way I could see was use procmail.
So far, sometimes so good. But every once in a while, a message 'slips
Hello Ralph.
Fail2ban can blacklist email addresses too? I want reject email
addresses, not block IPs.
Thanks
Josep
El lun, 29-03-2010 a las 21:41 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt escribió:
> * Josep M. :
> > Hello.
> >
> > One spammer has tried about 300 times send me email, always from the
> > same a
* Josep M. :
> Hello Ralph.
>
> Fail2ban can blacklist email addresses too? I want reject email
> addresses, not block IPs.
All you have to do is call a script instead of iptables.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Ben
Evan Platt(e...@espphotography.com)@Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:05:31PM -0700:
> I know it's overkill, but I run my own postfix (2.6.2) on my server at
> home. My domain, my mail. Just me.
>
> Just switched to IMAP, and figured I'd also like to sync filtering
> rules, so best way I could see was u
Hello Everyone.
Our company sends out newsletters to people who have subscribed their mail
address in-store (retail). I have been working in attempt to slow down
E-Mail deliveries to Hotmail, as our server attempts deliveries too quickly
and will get blocked by their servers. I have googled and
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Mike Hutchinson wrote:
> It appears that whenever I use the smtphotmail transport rules, instead of
> the global ones, delivery attempts to the domain increase as if there was no
> limitation.. Ie: after a Postfix reload, I follow the mail.info log and find
> straight after th
Mike Hutchinson:
> Hello Everyone.
>
> Our company sends out newsletters to people who have subscribed their mail
> address in-store (retail). I have been working in attempt to slow down
> E-Mail deliveries to Hotmail, as our server attempts deliveries too quickly
> and will get blocked by their se
> >
> > smtphotmail unix - - - - 3
> smtp
>
> Who told you to set a wakeup timer of 3 seconds? Remove it.
No-one did. I had intended to set a max processes limit..
As I understand it, this would be setting the Max Processes limit.
smtphotmail unix
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Mike Hutchinson wrote:
> As I understand it, this would be setting the Max Processes limit.
> smtphotmail unix- - - - 3 smtp
That is how you set maxproc, but why do you need 3 for this transport?
> And setting the wakeup timer woul
52 matches
Mail list logo
