Hi List,
I want to cc one incoming email, when incoming (from) field contains
one email address. Is this possible in postfix?
--
Eero
On 1/16/11 9:37 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Hi List,
I want to cc one incoming email, when incoming (from) field contains
one email address. Is this possible in postfix?
If you're talking about the MAIL FROM address, yes; use sender_bcc_maps
as documented in http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.h
On 1/9/2011 10:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Steve Jenkins:
Up to now, we've been running Postfix 2.3.3 that was installed on a number
of CentOS 5.5 production servers with a simple "yum install postfix"
We want to run an updated version, so I compiled 2.7.2 from source using the
information at h
I set message_size_limit = 0 in main.conf and postfix started ok but I
wasn't getting mail so I read the docs.
It said mailbox_size_limit must be larger than message_size_limit so I
set it to It said
mailbox_size_limit = 0 and I got mail. :-)
The goal was to be able to receive messages of any siz
I have uploaded postfix-2.8.0-RC1, which contains the same code as
postfix-2.9-20110116, except for the bits that were marked as
"snapshot only".
Currently, this means that "smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade = strong" in
snapshot versus "none" in stable, and that the BCC act
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:32:29PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I have uploaded postfix-2.8.0-RC1, which contains the same code as
> postfix-2.9-20110116, except for the bits that were marked as
> "snapshot only".
>
> Currently, this means that "smtpd_tls_eecdh
Each time I want to read some documentation on www.postfix.org I type
postfix.org in an address line and see an error, and each time I think, that
main postfix site is down. Could site administrators finally configure main
postfix site in the correct way, as for now - it's something shameful. Add
r
Victor Duchovni:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:32:29PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > I have uploaded postfix-2.8.0-RC1, which contains the same code as
> > postfix-2.9-20110116, except for the bits that were marked as
> > "snapshot only".
&
> Each time I want to read some documentation on www.postfix.org I type
> postfix.org in an address line and see an error, and each time I think, that
> main postfix site is down. Could site administrators finally configure main
> postfix site in the correct way, as for now - it's something shamefu
Yes, cool. But the problem is not in "to use www or not to use www". The
problem is that main page of some internet resource, which *always* is
domain name without any subdomains, couldn't return an error. It's a...
nonsense! When somebody ask "tell me an address of website", nobody and
never
On 2011-01-17 ?? ?? wrote:
> Each time I want to read some documentation on www.postfix.org I type
> postfix.org in an address line and see an error, and each time I
> think, that main postfix site is down. Could site administrators
> finally configure main postfix site in t
Technical correct but not really wise since it needs
only a simple dns-record and a "ServerAlias postfix.org"
in the httpd-vhost and there is no vaild reason to not
do that
Firefox seems to try this automatically because such setup
exists and try to think for the browser-users, the need
of such br
Le 17/01/2011 00:02, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> Technical correct but not really wise since it needs
> only a simple dns-record and a "ServerAlias postfix.org"
> in the httpd-vhost and there is no vaild reason to not
> do that
>
- if you have something to tell to postfix webmaster, contact him dir
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:02:00PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I've been running with "smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade = strong" with Postfix
> > 2.7 for a while now. No problems to report. Approximately 24,000 EECDH
> > sessions a week. Of these approximately 75% use AECDH-AES256-SHA, and ~25%
> > use
> Yes, cool. But the problem is not in "to use www or not to use www". The
> problem is that main page of some internet resource, which *always* is
> domain name without any subdomains, couldn't return an error. It's a...
...bird. It's a plane. It's Superman.
This mailing list is about the Postfi
> Use a real IMAP server backend, not /var/spool/mail. Cyrus, Dovecot, ...
> offer a much more performant and manageable mail-store. If you need
> quotas, (and even more so with per-user quoatas), don't waste time with
> /var/spool/mail mboxes.
This may be both true and fine advice, but is it real
I have the following error using postfix 2.8.0-RC1
Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: warning: unexpected
attribute rewrite_context from smtp socket (expecting: log_ident)
Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: warning:
deliver_request_get: error receiving common attributes
Jan 17
Eugene Vilensky:
> My mailserver is dovecot, my users are all local system accounts, and
> /var/spool mail contains mostly lightly-used mbox formatso I think
> I will go with a filesystem quota?
Postfix was designed to work with per-user file system quota
for "system" accounts.
Wietse
Joan Moreau:
>
> I have the following error using postfix 2.8.0-RC1
>
> Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: warning: unexpected
> attribute rewrite_context from smtp socket (expecting: log_ident)
> Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: warning:
> deliver_request_get: error rece
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 07:41:22PM -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
> I have the following error using postfix 2.8.0-RC1
>
> Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: warning: unexpected attribute
> rewrite_context from smtp socket (expecting: log_ident)
> Jan 17 01:38:36 server postfix/smtp[5807]: war
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:52 AM
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:02:00PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > I've been running with "smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade = strong" with
> Postfix
>
How to get this " queue" stopped ? (I killed the processes
'postfix' to be sure, but the bug stays)
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:47:10
-0500 (EST), Wietse Venema wrote:
> Joan Moreau:
>> I have the
following error using postfix 2.8.0-RC1 Jan 17 01:38:36 server
postfix/smtp[5807]: warning: unexpec
Joan Moreau:
>
>
> How to get this " queue" stopped ? (I killed the processes
> 'postfix' to be sure, but the bug stays)
# postfix stop
Wietse
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:47:10
> -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Joan Moreau:
> >> I have the
> following error using postfix 2.8.
Mark Scholten:
> > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:52 AM
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:02:00PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > I've been running with "smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:32:42AM +0100, Mark Scholten wrote:
> > That's my take. Previous hop mta name comments include:
> >
> > - Exim 4.72 #3
> > - Websense Email Security (7.3.0)".
> > - XWall v3.46h
> > - SonicWALL 7.3.0.4387
> > - 8.13.8/8.13.8/SuSE Linux 0.8
> >
> > T
Dear List,
We are planning to run a mailing system using postfix, courier imap,maildrop
and openldap. There will be two mail servers each server catering to a
defined set of users. Thus we would need to deliver the mails depending on
the location of the user. Once a mail reaches the system, we nee
hi,
i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning
Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning:
psc_cache_update: /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db update took 103 ms
is this ok?
how much time needed for psc_cache_update, idealy?
this is my potsconf -n,
Hi
Does increasing the number of cores on the same hardware platform add
performance to a Postfix system or it is better to run several Postfix
systems on different machines? If the second choice is better, is it
logical to run Postfix on different VMs (using ESX for example),
let's say on somethi
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 06:55:39AM +0200, Jaques Cochet wrote:
> Does increasing the number of cores on the same hardware platform add
> performance to a Postfix system or it is better to run several Postfix
> systems on different machines?
Yes, but only if the CPU is the bottleneck. Typically th
Hi Noel,
I have changed MX priority to high for mailhub, it has taken 5 hours to update,
but when i checked with host -t mx example.com from mailhub.example.com still
it shows mailhub as low priority, from external server it shows mailhub as high
priority.
During this period i am able to send
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:50:16AM +0700, Hari Hendaryanto wrote:
> i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning
>
> Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning: psc_cache_update:
> /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db update took 103 ms
>
&
* Wietse Venema :
> Victor Duchovni:
> > I've been running with "smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade = strong" with Postfix
> > 2.7 for a while now. No problems to report. Approximately 24,000 EECDH
> > sessions a week. Of these approximately 75% use AECDH-AES256-SHA, and ~25%
> > use ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA.
> >
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 06:24:28AM +0100, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> > > Perhaps with 2.9 we can finally "mainstream" server-side eecdh support.
> >
> > Assuming that these aren't all Postfix-to-Postfix sessions, that would
> > mean EECDH is burned in by now.
>
> I just investigated this, and the
Am 17.01.2011 06:37, schrieb Victor Duchovni:
> Postfix may for now be the only mainstream SMTP server that enables
> server-side EECDH support, but this is not important. SMTP servers
> don't talk to SMTP servers
Wrong
In summary more SMTP servers are talking to other servers than to clients
If postfix alone is running on the server, let's say as a mail router
or backend delivey system, would postfix processes make use of all
cores? would I be left with cores doing nothing even If I have an
important number of emails to process?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:12:29AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 17.01.2011 06:37, schrieb Victor Duchovni:
>
> > Postfix may for now be the only mainstream SMTP server that enables
> > server-side EECDH support, but this is not important. SMTP servers
> > don't talk to SMTP servers
>
> Wron
On 1/17/2011 12:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:50:16AM +0700, Hari Hendaryanto wrote:
i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning
Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning: psc_cache_update:
/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db u
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:18:57AM +0200, Jaques Cochet wrote:
> If postfix alone is running on the server, let's say as a mail router
> or backend delivey system, would postfix processes make use of all
> cores? would I be left with cores doing nothing even If I have an
> important number of emai
Yes, well, that is what I do.
THe bug does not disappear anyway
... How to fix that ?
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:42:23 -0500 (EST), Wietse
Venema wrote:
> Joan Moreau:
>> How to get this " queue" stopped ? (I
killed the processes 'postfix' to be sure, but the bug stays)
> #
postfix stop Wiets
39 matches
Mail list logo
