Re: postfix as incoming relay to protect exchange server / recipient lookup

Am 02.12.2010 23:08, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/2/2010 6:08 AM: and there's a 5 sec. delay ... seems way too long to me for just checking the recipient...!? That delay should be no longer than what a typical delivery to the Exchange server would be. Since no mess

Re: postfix as incoming relay to protect exchange server / recipient lookup

Am 05.12.2010 20:40, schrieb DTNX/NGMX Postmaster: On 02/12/2010, at 23:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/2/2010 6:08 AM: and there's a 5 sec. delay ... seems way too long to me for just checking the recipient...!? That delay should be no longer than what a typical d

Re: delivery temporarily suspended: unknown mail transport error

Hello All, I think the problem is fixed, it was a problem with master.cf file. By googling the problem, i found this poste: http://readlist.com/lists/lists.sourceforge.net/amavis-user/0/45.html That's remembred me that since few months, i backued up postfix config files and installed a new ve

MX Backup

Hi all, i'm setting postfix server as primary and mx backup as well and i'm not using relay_domains directive. this is my configuration: DNS domain.com IN MX 10 primary.server.com domain.com IN MX 20 secondary.server.com POSTFIX transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_transport.cf Into transp

Re: MX Backup

Bissio2000: > Hi all, > > i'm setting postfix server as primary and mx backup as well and i'm not > using relay_domains directive. > this is my configuration: > > DNS > domain.com IN MX 10 primary.server.com > domain.com IN MX 20 secondary.server.com > > POSTFIX > transport_maps = mysql:/etc/pos

postscreen in snapshot 20101204 drops connections

I got less mail overnight, and unfortunately that was because of a mis-coded output error test that caused postscreen to hang up connections, and that caused clients to keep mail queued. Snapshot 20101206 fixes this. Wietse

Re: postscreen in snapshot 20101204 drops connections

On 12/6/2010 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > I got less mail overnight, and unfortunately that was because of > a mis-coded output error test that caused postscreen to hang up > connections, and that caused clients to keep mail queued. Snapshot > 20101206 fixes this. > >

R: MX Backup

Bissio2000: > Hi all, > > i'm setting postfix server as primary and mx backup as well and i'm not > using relay_domains directive. > this is my configuration: > > DNS > domain.com IN MX 10 primary.server.com > domain.com IN MX 20 secondary.server.com > > POSTFIX > transport_maps = mysql:/etc/pos

Re: R: MX Backup

Bissio2000: > Bissio2000: > > Hi all, > > > > i'm setting postfix server as primary and mx backup as well and i'm not > > using relay_domains directive. > > this is my configuration: > > > > DNS > > domain.com IN MX 10 primary.server.com > > domain.com IN MX 20 secondary.server.com > > > > POSTF

Re: Should I have postgrey listen on a socket?

I'm running amavisd-new/spamassassin/spamassassin-fuzzyocr/clamav. Would it behoove me to run Postgrey, too? --Curtis On 12/5/2010 11:10 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Zitat von Grant : I just noticed that postgrey is listening on localhost:10030. Would it be better to have it listen to a socke

R: R: MX Backup

Bissio2000: > Bissio2000: > > Hi all, > > > > i'm setting postfix server as primary and mx backup as well and i'm not > > using relay_domains directive. > > this is my configuration: > > > > DNS > > domain.com IN MX 10 primary.server.com > > domain.com IN MX 20 secondary.server.com > > > > POST

Re: R: R: MX Backup

* Bissio2000 : > According to the standard configuration explained at > http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html about setting up a > primary and secondary mx, I don't understand how the mx backup returns back > all messages when the primary server come up from down state; I mean

Re: Should I have postgrey listen on a socket?

On 12/6/2010 10:34 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: I'm running amavisd-new/spamassassin/spamassassin-fuzzyocr/clamav. Would it behoove me to run Postgrey, too? --Curtis If you decide that greylisting is right for you, postgrey is a popular choice -- it's flexible and reliable. The greylist serv

mysql based blacklist

Hi I host several domains on my mail system. The various domains all have their own dedicated spamassassin blacklist. Because spamassassin's blacklist implementation is not waterproof (if message size > spamc -s $size, let mail pass unchecked), I want to run the blacklist via smtpd_sender_res

Re: mysql based blacklist

On 12/6/2010 3:31 PM, John Adams wrote: Hi I host several domains on my mail system. The various domains all have their own dedicated spamassassin blacklist. Because spamassassin's blacklist implementation is not waterproof (if message size > spamc -s $size, let mail pass unchecked), I want t

Re: mysql based blacklist

Le 06/12/2010 21:31, John Adams a écrit : Hi I host several domains on my mail system. The various domains all have their own dedicated spamassassin blacklist. Because spamassassin's blacklist implementation is not waterproof (if message size > spamc -s $size, let mail pass unchecked), I want to

Re: Should I have postgrey listen on a socket?

Noel Jones put forth on 12/6/2010 11:10 AM: > If you decide that greylisting is right for you, postgrey is a popular > choice -- it's flexible and reliable. ... > See google for benefits and risks of using greylisting if you're not > familiar with it. Interestingly, just a few days ago I decommis

Empty From when generating bounce

Hi, I'm having some problem with bounces. When someone send mail to my mail server and sender is not existent, postfix generate bounce. Bounce has empty envelope "From" set (from=<>) . I'm using relayhost and when sending bounce back I've got error that "From" shouldn't be empty/invalid (I thin