On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 09:40 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > .
>
> This illustrates what you get when blocking all mail from an ISP
> just because some customer sent some email that hit some spamtrap.
>
We do it here, I've done it for 5 years or so, little problems at all
given the r
On 10/28/2010 6:26 PM, Kory Hamzeh wrote:
3. I have TLS working with name/pass auth, on port 587 if the client
UNCHECKS "Use SSL". For some reason that I don't understand, if the client
has "Use SSL" enabled, it disconnects the TCP connection as soon as a SSL
In the context of most mail clients
Wietse:
> [About blocking all mail from an ISP because some customer sent spam]
> Such an approach makes sense only if receiving one spam message is
> a bigger problem than losing a larger amount of legitimate email.
Noel Butler:
> But how do you know its only " one " I'm sure if this IP in questi
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.sheltoncomputers.com
X-SC-Mail-Server-Queue-ID: B84AF1B60004
X-SC-Mail-Server-Sender: rfc822; syste...@sheltoncomputers.com
Arrival-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; ad...@sheltoncomputers.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822; root
Action: fai
Jerrale G:
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; ad...@sheltoncomputers.com
> Original-Recipient: rfc822; root
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.3.0
> Diagnostic-Code: x-unix; internal software error
Translation: some command was running as a POSTFIX CHILD process,
and that command terminated with status 70.
Thi
Dear Team,
I am using postfix to sending the mail,but some time postfix is working
very slow.Please give the advice how to improve profermance of postfix to
send the fast mail.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Jerrale G <
jerralega...@sheltoncomputers.com> wrote:
> Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.
Ravindra Gupta // Viva:
> Dear Team,
>
> I am using postfix to sending the mail,but some time postfix is working
> very slow.Please give the advice how to improve profermance of postfix to
> send the fast mail.
Please DO NOT ask a NEW question by replying to OLD MAIL.
The first check in our smtpd_recipient_restrictions defers mail for overquota
users:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/overquota,
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/legacy-domains,
.
.
.
The overquota map file just defers messages:
x...@doma
Hey postfix-users,
we are currently analyzing very strange postfix behavior which I can
only describe as lockup or freeze.
Honestly we reached our abilities to gather more info and to find the
root cause of this issue.
You are my last hope obi wan ... eh Wietse
--- Setup / Configuration --
Rich Bishop:
> This appears to be working fine, but I heard from a hotmail user today that a
> multi-recipient message to our domain is being deferred for all
> recipients. In the postfix logs I see hotmail connecting to us, attempting two
> addresses that are overquota and then hanging up.
That's
On 10/29/2010 10:01 AM, Rich Bishop wrote:
The first check in our smtpd_recipient_restrictions defers mail for overquota
users:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/overquota,
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/legacy-domains,
Careful there; carel
Zitat von Christian Rohmann :
Hey postfix-users,
we are currently analyzing very strange postfix behavior which I can
only describe as lockup or freeze.
Honestly we reached our abilities to gather more info and to find the
root cause of this issue.
You are my last hope obi wan ... eh Wietse ..
I will assume that this is a bug in OS software or in emulated hardware.
Does this server run in a virtual machine?
What is the output from "grep fatal" on today's and yesterday's maillog file?
What is the output from "grep watchdog" on all your maillog files?
Wietse
Hey Wietse,
thanks for the quick reply. Sorry for the delay, was a few GBs of logs
to grep through ;-)
On 10/29/2010 05:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I will assume that this is a bug in OS software or in emulated hardware.
Possible, but we are not really having a special setup ... just VMware +
D
Christian Rohmann:
> > Does this server run in a virtual machine?
> Yeah, the Debian Lenny (amd64) runs on VMware ESX 4.1 hosts. The guests
> itself are Vmware HW revision 7.
VMware has an entire KB article on problems with delivering timer
interrupts to guest machines, and the hoops that they are
> > On 10/29/2010 05:43 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
> > > Maybe another instance of this problem?
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/postfix-users/message/269786
> >
> > Even though at some point postfix stopped at EPOLL_WAIT...
The main loop in the master is as follows:
forever {
s
Hey again,
On 10/29/2010 07:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The main loop in the master is as follows:
>
> forever {
> set an alarm for 1000s
> do an EPOLL_WAIT for up to 500s and handle any child process
> events, or short-term timer requests that are implemented
> around the E
On 10/29/2010 05:35 PM, Christian Rohmann wrote:
Hey postfix-users,
we are currently analyzing very strange postfix behavior which I can
only describe as lockup or freeze.
Honestly we reached our abilities to gather more info and to find the
root cause of this issue.
You are my last hope obi wa
Hi Stan,
>
> I think Victor meant "not" a Postfix issue. If you
> want to build a mail
> store cluster over a WAN link, start your reading here:
>
> http://www.drbd.org
> http://sourceware.org/cluster/gfs/
>
> The combination of these will allow you to accomplish your
> cluster goal.
> Dep
Christian Rohmann:
> > It would be worthwhile to see what strace reports when you leave
> > it running. If strace reports nothing in 500s then EPOLL_WAIT is
> > not working. If strace reports nothing after 1000s then the alarm
> > timer is also not working.
>
> I'll try to gather you some strace d
Hi,
On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/27/2010 7:02 PM, Al Zick wrote:
Is there a replacement for procmail? I know it seemed to take
longer and did raise cpu usage, but when I first installed it
with bogofilter, it almost eliminated spam getting into my inbox.
depends on w
On 10/29/2010 09:39 PM, Al Zick wrote:
Currently, I just use procmail to interface with the spam filters.
Procmail is expensive to run.
If you use amavisd-new with SA, it will control those processes outside
of mailbox delivery.
I would really like to put a bunch of rules into procmail too
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:01:51AM -0400, Rich Bishop wrote:
> The overquota map file just defers messages:
>
> x...@domain.edu 460 Mailbox Overquota
> y...@domain.edu 460 Mailbox Overquota
What is this "460" code? Don't invent non-standard SMTP reply codes.
The correct response is:
45
Christian Rohmann:
> Hey again,
>
> On 10/29/2010 07:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The main loop in the master is as follows:
> >
> > forever {
> > set an alarm for 1000s
> > do an EPOLL_WAIT for up to 500s and handle any child process
> > events, or short-term timer requests that a
Le 29/10/2010 21:39, Al Zick a écrit :
Currently, I just use procmail to interface with the spam filters. I
would really like to put a bunch of rules into procmail too, for
example: if is sees the word viagra anywhere in the email, it is spam,
there is no reason to go any further with it.
if
I wish to manually delivered email to 2nd instance of Postfix instead of
going through Amavisd-release function for a reason other than do not want
to edit Amavisd-new configuration.
Can you tell me the command to accomplish the above request?
Thanks,
-Motty
-Original Message-
From:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:15:02 -0700
motty.cruz articulated:
> I wish to manually delivered email to 2nd instance of Postfix instead
> of going through Amavisd-release function for a reason other than do
> not want to edit Amavisd-new configuration.
>
> Can you tell me the command to accomplish t
" i know all you know nothing" then kill the thread so people can't
show you might be wrong or defend themselves, oh my. how nice, now I
recall why i probably left this list last time! I hope you get that new
job in the censorship office, you've got the right credentials.
and for the record, I
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 09:26 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>
> " i know all you know nothing" then kill the thread so people can't
> show you might be wrong or defend themselves, oh my. how nice, now I
> recall why i probably left this list last time! I hope you get that
> new job in the censorsh
Peter put forth on 10/29/2010 1:55 PM:
> guess it is something beyond postfix to handle. not sure how postfix users
> will handle such an issue?
Attempting to architect your remote site cluster or failover solution
via back-n-forth to the Postfix mail list is not the proper way to go
about this.
30 matches
Mail list logo
