Dear All,
I am facing installation issue with postfix 2.7.0.
I have installed gcc + db*-devel as well.
When I start make && make install command to postfix source 2.7.0, as a
result it installs 2.3.X version..
Here are the logs for gcc..Can anyone help what is wrong ???
gcc -Wm
--- On Wed, 5/19/10, Wietse Venema wrote:
> From: Wietse Venema
> Subject: Re: Disable Connection Cache for local filters
> To: "Postfix users"
> Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 7:16 AM
> Harakiri:
> > However, i would like to disable this for local
> filters
> > (anti/spam/virus) because some
Harakiri:
> > scan unix - - n - 10 smtp
> > -o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes
> > -o disable_mime_output_conversion=yes
> > -o smtp_generic_maps=
> > -o smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
> I tested it with -o smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
Khawaja M. Jawad:
> Dear All,
>
> I am facing installation issue with postfix 2.7.0.
>
> I have installed gcc + db*-devel as well.
>
> When I start make && make install command to postfix source 2.7.0, as a
> result it installs 2.3.X version..
Please show concrete evidence that you did "make"
Hi,
I have posted this on news:alt.comp.mail.postfix without getting a
reply.
I really would like to know, if I should use the proposes solution.
I need to deliver mail to hosts in my domain
(ANY_HOST.intranet.mydomain.com) directly via smtp, elsewhere via a
relayhost.
Now I got:
Josef G. Bauer:
> Hi,
>
> I have posted this on news:alt.comp.mail.postfix without getting a
> reply.
>
> I really would like to know, if I should use the proposes solution.
>
> I need to deliver mail to hosts in my domain
> (ANY_HOST.intranet.mydomain.com) directly via smtp, elsewhere via a
> rela
Manao ahoana, Hello, Bonjour,
I use a Postfix 2.5.5, the one embeded in Debian Lenny.
I have to physically move the server to another hardware.
The server IP wont be the same (it doesn't matter, may be).
It's a receiving server so I dont want the move to generate greylist,
in order to disturb th
Hi Wietse,
thanks for your answer.
> /etc/postfix/transport:
>.intranet.mydomain.com :
But if an email was addresses to b...@pelikan (without the domain)
wouldn't it be delivered via the relayhost then?
Greetings
Josef
Josef G. Bauer:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> thanks for your answer.
>
>
> > /etc/postfix/transport:
> >.intranet.mydomain.com :
>
> But if an email was addresses to b...@pelikan (without the domain)
> wouldn't it be delivered via the relayhost then?
Postfix does not support that. (You can configure i
Hi,
We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
We already implemented restrictions on concurrency and number of
recipients per message not to trigger various filters at the receiving
end, and now I thought that ma
Per olof Ljungmark:
> Hi,
>
> We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
> it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
No, this is inaccurate.
In reality, Postfix writes recipients to the queue file in the
order that it received them.
At DELIVERY TIME, th
Currently I use the smtpd_recipient_limit value below the norm, however,
there is a need for some users being released this value, ie, they would
have another dealings, or getting another value, is it possible?
--
Márcio Luciano Donada
Aurora Alimentos - Cooperativa Central Oeste Catarinense
Dep
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
>> it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
>
> No, this is inaccurate.
>
> In reality, Postfix writes recipients to the queue file in the
> order that it
On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:46:14 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby
wrote:
>
> What would be your recommended way to copy greylisting informations?
> - hard copying /var/lib/postgrey/ content
> - scripting something (Perl with what modules?) to dump and restore db
> files?
>
As long as the postgrey
Per olof Ljungmark:
> Yes, thanks, agree on load distribution. In this case the problem is not
> the load, I was just contemplating ways not to trigger various
> (sometimes inaccurate) methods of spam filtering to complement what we
> already have, but what we already have should probably be enoug
Zitat von Mihamina Rakotomandimby :
Manao ahoana, Hello, Bonjour,
I use a Postfix 2.5.5, the one embeded in Debian Lenny.
I have to physically move the server to another hardware.
The server IP wont be the same (it doesn't matter, may be).
It's a receiving server so I dont want the move to ge
Hi.
I wish to rewrite or disable "userid X" (Received: by mail.example.com
(Postfix, from userid 100)), for not show on postfix headers.
is possible to make these settings in main.cf file configuration of postfix?
--
LCC Wilberth de Jesú
This college has a contract with Rave Messaging to deliver high volume
(ex campus emergency) communications via many vectors including email.
In their requirements document, in the portion on email, they write:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: When an emergency alert is sent by your institution,
Rave will open m
hello all reader
hello list
hello postfix network
since I've installed dovecot deliver. e-mails no longer pass through
amavisd.
amavisd no longer work.
c is to say I have no anti-spam and anti virus
my postconf and dovecot -n
[r...@r13151 ~]# postconf -n
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases , has
I have a policy server that needs to be able to make policy decisions after a
before-queue content filter. The problem is that the client IP address
reported by the second smtpd instance to the policy server is that of the
proxy (i.e. localhost), rather than of the sending server. Would it mak
Hi,
I would disable in my postfix installation the sending of bounce mail.
I try to change my master.cf in this way:
bounceunix - n n - 0 pipe -vv
user=mail flags=Rq argv=/etc/postfix/bounce.sh
and the script bounce.sh is:
# cat /etc/postfix/bounce.sh
#!/
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:42:17PM -0400, Joshua Pettett wrote:
> I have a policy server that needs to be able to make policy decisions after a
> before-queue content filter. The problem is that the client IP address
> reported by the second smtpd instance to the policy server is that of the
>
Robert Lopez:
> This college has a contract with Rave Messaging to deliver high volume
> (ex campus emergency) communications via many vectors including email.
>
> In their requirements document, in the portion on email, they write:
>
> "IMPORTANT NOTE: When an emergency alert is sent by your ins
On Wednesday 26 May 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:42:17PM -0400, Joshua Pettett wrote:
> > I have a policy server that needs to be able to make policy decisions
> > after a before-queue content filter. The problem is that the client IP
> > address reported by the second
On 5/26/2010 9:26 AM, Márcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Currently I use the smtpd_recipient_limit value below the norm, however,
there is a need for some users being released this value, ie, they would
have another dealings, or getting another value, is it possible?
While it's possible for differen
On 5/26/2010 11:55 AM, Giovanni Mancuso wrote:
Hi,
I would disable in my postfix installation the sending of bounce mail.
Solve the right problem; don't accept mail you can't deliver.
-- Noel Jones
I try to change my master.cf in this way:
bounce unix - n n - 0 pipe -vv
user=mail flag
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:14:08PM -0400, Joshua Pettett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 May 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:42:17PM -0400, Joshua Pettett wrote:
> > > I have a policy server that needs to be able to make policy decisions
> > > after a before-queue content filt
On 5/26/2010 10:13 AM, Wilberth Pérez wrote:
Hi.
I wish to rewrite or disable "userid X" (Received: by mail.example.com
(Postfix, from userid 100)), for not show on postfix headers.
is possible to make these settings in main.cf file configuration of postfix?
Use smtp_header_checks REPLACE act
Dear all, I live in Argentina and now we can use the Ñ letter in our
domain names. I have a mail system conformed with Debian Lenny /
Postfix 2.5.5-1.1.
My question is this:
Does Postfix 2.5.5-1.1 support IDN domain names in case I create a
@ñoño.com.ar domain ??? Or is it a problem inherent only
Em 26/5/2010 14:20, Noel Jones escreveu:
> On 5/26/2010 9:26 AM, Márcio Luciano Donada wrote:
>> Currently I use the smtpd_recipient_limit value below the norm, however,
>> there is a need for some users being released this value, ie, they would
>> have another dealings, or getting another value, i
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:11:41PM -0300, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> Dear all, I live in Argentina and now we can use the ?? letter in our
> domain names. I have a mail system conformed with Debian Lenny /
> Postfix 2.5.5-1.1.
>
> My question is this:
>
> Does Postfix 2.5.5-1.1 support IDN
On 5/26/2010 1:17 PM, Márcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Em 26/5/2010 14:20, Noel Jones escreveu:
On 5/26/2010 9:26 AM, Márcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Currently I use the smtpd_recipient_limit value below the norm, however,
there is a need for some users being released this value, ie, they would
have a
I've a hunch that the following problem is not something that can be
configured away through postfix but, as I'm well aware that my config-fu
is not the strongest, I'd like any advice more experience among you
might have. I'm sure this isn't a rare problem.
I recently began supporting the webs
On 5/26/2010 2:53 PM, brian wrote:
> I've a hunch that the following problem is not something that can be
> configured away through postfix but, as I'm well aware that my config-fu
> is not the strongest, I'd like any advice more experience among you
> might have. I'm sure this isn't a rare problem
* brian :
> organisation). The old domain points to this new server in order to
> redirect web traffic. AFAIK, there were never any email addresses
> used under the old domain. But, now I've set up postfix, I'm seeing
> thousands of failed attempts to send to various fictitious DOMAIN.com
> addres
Thanks Viktor, sorry but I don't understand this: you say Postfix
works with ASCII on-the-wire, so if in my Postfix I create a virtual
domain called "ñandu.gov.ar" you tell me that Postfix will
automatically encoded it to Punycode and resulting the domain:
xn--andu-fqa.gov.ar
So I can cre
On 2010-05-26 brian wrote:
> I've a hunch that the following problem is not something that can be
> configured away through postfix but, as I'm well aware that my
> config-fu is not the strongest, I'd like any advice more experience
> among you might have. I'm sure this isn't a rare problem.
>
> I
On 26.05.2010, at 21:01, Matt Hayes wrote:
>> Is there
>> something more I can do to mitigate the stress on the server?
>
> You could look into using RBLs such as spamhaus etc.
In general RBLs work fine against these dictionary attacks. But in this special
case where not one address exists at t
On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam sent to
valid users (which according to his description doesn't seem to be the
case) he could go without as well.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Abstractions
On 10-05-26 03:03 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* brian:
Which domain is the old one, which is the new one?
"One change I suggested was to utilise a .org domain rather than .com"
Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
E.g.:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_de
On 10-05-26 03:21 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
The connections are being rejected, so unless your server resources are
being exhausted by the delivery attempts I don't think you have to worry
about it.
As mentioned in another msg, I neglected to mention that postfix is
already being put into st
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:37, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > Phil Howard:
>> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre tables.
>> >> >
>> >> > ?1) You can use t
On 5/26/2010 3:29 PM, brian wrote:
> On 10-05-26 03:21 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>>
>> The connections are being rejected, so unless your server resources are
>> being exhausted by the delivery attempts I don't think you have to worry
>> about it.
>
> As mentioned in another msg, I neglected to m
On 2010-05-26 brian wrote:
> On 10-05-26 03:21 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> The connections are being rejected, so unless your server resources
>> are being exhausted by the delivery attempts I don't think you have
>> to worry about it.
>
> As mentioned in another msg, I neglected to mention that
On 10-05-26 03:24 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam sent to
valid users (which according to his description doesn't seem to be the
case) he could go without as we
Hello,
I've setup Postfix 2.7.0 to relay all mails to the local proxy spampd:
smtp inet n - n - 25 smtpd
-o smtpd_proxy_filter=127.0.0.1:10025
-o smtpd_proxy_options=speed_adjust
127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - - smtpd
On 10-05-26 03:31 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
I wonder if using something like postscreen from the 2.8-snapshots would
help to curtail some of the resource usage.
Thanks, I'll check it out. However, I'd feel more optimistic about it if
it was named prescreen ;-)
On 5/26/2010 3:35 PM, brian wrote:
> On 10-05-26 03:31 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if using something like postscreen from the 2.8-snapshots would
>> help to curtail some of the resource usage.
>>
>
> Thanks, I'll check it out. However, I'd feel more optimistic about it if
> it was named
On 2010-05-26 brian wrote:
> On 10-05-26 03:24 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>> Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
>>
>> Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam sent
>> to valid users (which according to his description doesn't seem t
On 10-05-26 03:43 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:24 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam sent
to valid users (which according
While you're looking into a way to drop these connections as quickly
as possible I would turn down the number of SMTPD processes on your
server. That should give your server a break. I'd start at 50 and
tune from there.
change your master.cf to something like:
#
On 5/26/2010 2:34 PM, brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:24 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam sent to
valid users (which according to his description doesn't seem to be
On 5/26/2010 2:50 PM, brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:43 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:24 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-26 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Shouldn'T you use at least ONE RBL?
Probably wouldn't hurt, but unless he's trying to fight off spam
On 2010-05-26 Jan-Kaspar Münnich wrote:
> I've setup Postfix 2.7.0 to relay all mails to the local proxy spampd:
>
> smtp inet n - n - 25 smtpd
> -o smtpd_proxy_filter=127.0.0.1:10025
> -o smtpd_proxy_options=speed_adjust
> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n
May 26 15:59:27 eth0 postfix/pipe[17347]: 0C35B68534:
to=, orig_to=, relay=dovecot, delay=21567,
delays=21567/0.02/0/0.06, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
I do have f...@example.com configured in virtual_alias_maps to go to
b...@example.com ... and that is working as I can send mail to
On 10-05-26 03:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Some random suggestions...
Use a bogus MX record for the old domain if that domain has no valid
mail recipients. Of course, some bots will connect to your A record
anyway...
OK, I like the sound of that. Per your other email, I think I did, a
long time
* brian :
> Correct. The SPAM problem is not directed at legitimate accounts
> (yet). All of these rejections are for fictitious accounts under the
> .com domain. I don't want to accept anything at all for that domain.
> However, I must keep the domain pointed at this new server in order
> to catc
* brian :
> On 10-05-26 03:31 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
> >
> >I wonder if using something like postscreen from the 2.8-snapshots would
> >help to curtail some of the resource usage.
> >
>
> Thanks, I'll check it out. However, I'd feel more optimistic about it
> if it was named prescreen ;-)
It's pos
* "Jan-Kaspar Münnich" :
> In general RBLs work fine against these dictionary attacks. But in this
> special case where not one address exists at the targeted domain, I
> doubt that RBLs would decrease server load, since that would add one
> more DNS lookup. I wouldn't see a big problem there, eve
Jan-Kaspar M?nnich:
> On 26.05.2010, at 21:01, Matt Hayes wrote:
>
> >> Is there
> >> something more I can do to mitigate the stress on the server?
> >
> > You could look into using RBLs such as spamhaus etc.
>
> In general RBLs work fine against these dictionary attacks. But
> in this special c
On 5/26/2010 4:21 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * brian :
>> On 10-05-26 03:31 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if using something like postscreen from the 2.8-snapshots would
>>> help to curtail some of the resource usage.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, I'll check it out. However, I'd feel more optimisti
Alejandro Cabrera Obed:
> Dear all, I live in Argentina and now we can use the ? letter in our
> domain names. I have a mail system conformed with Debian Lenny /
> Postfix 2.5.5-1.1.
>
> My question is this:
>
> Does Postfix 2.5.5-1.1 support IDN domain names in case I create a
> @?o?o.com.ar dom
* Matt Hayes :
> postscreen doesn't require you to use RBL's during its checks,
Ah yes, the earlytalking and all.
> however, you have the ability to do so. The nice thing about doing RBL
> checks in postscreen is it stops connections from getting to the SMTPD,
> thus reducing system load.
Tha
On 5/26/2010 4:32 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Matt Hayes :
>
>> postscreen doesn't require you to use RBL's during its checks,
>
> Ah yes, the earlytalking and all.
>
>> however, you have the ability to do so. The nice thing about doing RBL
>> checks in postscreen is it stops connections f
brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Some random suggestions...
Use a bogus MX record for the old domain if that domain has no valid
mail recipients. Of course, some bots will connect to your A record
anyway...
OK, I like the sound of that. Per your other email, I think I did
On 2010-05-26 4:12 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> Is there a way to get it to be remapped now that it is in the
> delivery queue? Or should I just create a mailbox for f...@example.com
> and mv the file over to b...@example.com?
Not sure if it would help, but maybe:
postsuper -r ALL
man postsuper
--
Wietse, thanks...but in Postfix I have to work with the ñoño.com.ar
domain name or with the xn--oo-yjab.gov.ar punycode domain name ???
For example, in my mail server I define my virtual domains in
/etc/postfix/vmaildomains. How di I have to define it:
ñoño.com.ar required
or
xn--oo-yjab.go
On 5/26/2010 3:12 PM, brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Some random suggestions...
Use a bogus MX record for the old domain if that domain has no valid
mail recipients. Of course, some bots will connect to your A record
anyway...
OK, I like the sound of that. Per your othe
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 05:53:17PM -0300, Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> Wietse, thanks...but in Postfix I have to work with the ??o??o.com.ar
> domain name or with the xn--oo-yjab.gov.ar punycode domain name ???
The latter.
> For example, in my mail server I define my virtual domains in
> /etc
Nataraj wrote:
brian wrote:
On 10-05-26 03:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Some random suggestions...
Use a bogus MX record for the old domain if that domain has no valid
mail recipients. Of course, some bots will connect to your A record
anyway...
OK, I like the sound of that. Per your other emai
On 26.05.2010, at 21:58, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> You could "replay" those messages from some host outside Postfix'
> $mynetworks, either manually (via telnet) or with some script.
I tried this several times but it always got catched by Spamassassin (like all
other mails do).
> Also you should
Hi There,
We have been discussing in-house our methods to monitor the postfix queue on
our client Auth-SMTP servers (x2, one is used for our web servers to send
mail via PHP, this is Auth as well). At the moment we are using OpsView
(Nagios) to monitor the queue size and alert us if/when it gets r
On 26-May-2010, at 14:12, brian wrote:
>
> I'll give all that a try. Does this order seem alright?
No, not really.
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks,
> reject_unlisted_recipient,
> reject_invalid_hostname,
> reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject
On 26-May-2010, at 14:28, Matt Hayes wrote:
>
> postscreen doesn't require you to use RBL's during its checks, however,
> you have the ability to do so. The nice thing about doing RBL checks in
> postscreen is it stops connections from getting to the SMTPD, thus
> reducing system load.
Ah. Need
On 5/26/2010 5:34 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-May-2010, at 14:28, Matt Hayes wrote:
postscreen doesn't require you to use RBL's during its checks, however,
you have the ability to do so. The nice thing about doing RBL checks in
postscreen is it stops connections from getting to the SMTPD, thus
re
Alejandro Cabrera Obed:
> Wietse, thanks...but in Postfix I have to work with the ?o?o.com.ar
> domain name or with the xn--oo-yjab.gov.ar punycode domain name ???
Read carefully.
The MAIL CLIENT must tranform non-ASCII domain names before
sending MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands.
Wietse
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Robert Lopez:
>> This college has a contract with Rave Messaging to deliver high volume
>> (ex campus emergency) communications via many vectors including email.
>>
>> In their requirements document, in the portion on email, they write:
>>
>
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
> FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
> addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses to be maintained. So,
> might a whitelist approach be the way to go? Or, is this something i
> should leave to iptables/fail2ban?
Ca
Robert Lopez:
> >> "reject_unauth_pipelining
> >> ? ? Reject the request when the client sends SMTP commands ahead of
> >> ? ? time WHERE IT IS NOT ALLOWED, or when the client sends SMTP
> >> ? ? commands ahead of time WITHOUT KNOWING THAT POSTFIX ACTUALLY
> >> ? ? SUPPORTS ESMTP COMMAND PIPELINING
Noel Jones put forth on 5/26/2010 3:56 PM:
> Use ps or top to see how much RAM each smtpd uses, guesstimate from
> there. If system swaps, reduce.
> Postscreen will help with this, since a single postscreen process can
> handle thousands of connections.
To lower memory consumption on your VPS, y
On 26-May-2010, at 17:01, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 5/26/2010 5:34 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 26-May-2010, at 14:28, Matt Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> postscreen doesn't require you to use RBL's during its checks, however,
>>> you have the ability to do so. The nice thing about doing RBL checks in
>>> post
On 10-05-26 09:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses to be maintained. So,
might a whitelist approach be the way to go? Or, is this something i
On 10-05-26 06:27 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-May-2010, at 14:12, brian wrote:
I'll give all that a try. Does this order seem alright?
No, not really.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
reject_unlisted_recipient, reject_invalid_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 8:28 PM:
> On 10-05-26 09:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
>>
>>> FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
>>> addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses to be maintained. So,
>>> might a whiteli
On Wed, 26 May 2010, Phil Howard wrote:
> May 26 15:59:27 eth0 postfix/pipe[17347]: 0C35B68534:
> to=, orig_to=, relay=dovecot, delay=21567,
> delays=21567/0.02/0/0.06, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
Dovecot is complaining here; Postfix is the messenger.
> I do have f...@example.com
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 8:28 PM:
On 10-05-26 09:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses to be maintaine
Nataraj put forth on 5/26/2010 10:06 PM:
> How does rate limiting work in conjunction with postscreen? Can the
> various rate limits be applied to postcreen or would rate limiting no
> longer be necessary. I run in a vmware virtual machine which used to
> fall on its knees from both bot and snow
87 matches
Mail list logo
