* Simon Brereton :
> > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> > us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Ben Koetter
> > * Simon Brereton :
> > > Probably not the best place for this, but hopefully someone will
> > tell
> > > me what I'm doing wrong anyway..
> > >
> > > I've
On 12/04/2011 11:12, Fabien COMBERNOUS wrote:
Hi there,
Is it possible to ask postfix to relay mail to an authenticated smtp
service ? This remote smtp service is using ssl or tls. I know it is
possible to relay mail to an authenticated smtp service but without
ssl/tls.
Any peace of inform
hi,
is it posible to forward unknown recipient mails to another server that
has those mailboxes,
me having a non empty local_recipient_maps?
i've been using postfix for a few years now, but i still can't get
something done.
i know is a long mail but please bear with me.
what i'm trying to do
Hi,
I'm trying to write an after queue content filter, and i have a questions.
If my filter have exit code 75 (for example), in postfix log after
status= i have in () the output of my filter, but if my filter have exit
code 0, the output is always "status=sent (delivered via filter
service)". Ca
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> [snip]
Received: from [190.221.28.39] (unknown [190.221.28.39])
>>> In this example, reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname would have
>>> generated a 450 rejection. You should always use
>>> reject_u
Giovanni Mancuso:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to write an after queue content filter, and i have a questions.
> If my filter have exit code 75 (for example), in postfix log after
> status= i have in () the output of my filter, but if my filter have exit
> code 0, the output is always "status=sent (deli
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 23:55:18 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 4/12/2011 10:58 PM:
> > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:19:03 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >> Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
> >>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> [snip]
>
> > Received: from [190.
On 4/12/2011 10:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 4/12/2011 6:56 PM:
On 4/12/2011 4:19 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
Received: from [190.221.28.39] (unknown [190.221.28.39])
In this example, reject_unknown
I've set up a server that uses postmulti for multiple companies to that I can
configure a milter to a different archiving solution for each, and I'd like to
add the possibility to add a disclaimer.
Normally I'd use altermime as a content filter that puts the mail back into the
queue with the se
On 4/13/2011 7:58 AM, Jon Cutting wrote:
I've set up a server that uses postmulti for multiple companies to that I can
configure a milter to a different archiving solution for each, and I'd like to
add the possibility to add a disclaimer.
Normally I'd use altermime as a content filter that put
-Original message-
To: postfix-users@postfix.org;
From: Noel Jones
Sent: Wed 13-04-2011 14:15
Subject:Re: Postfix Multi and Sendmail
> On 4/13/2011 7:58 AM, Jon Cutting wrote:
> > I've set up a server that uses postmulti for multiple companies to that I
> > can
> configu
Hi,
Got an interesting case today and would like to share an idea with you.
IN case the link [1]. what happens is that from has a name but that name
is an e-mail has just passed and another staff automatically is not
really from. Is there a way to be blocking email like this?
[1]. http://paste.ubu
Jon Cutting:
> I've set up a server that uses postmulti for multiple companies
> to that I can configure a milter to a different archiving solution
> for each, and I'd like to add the possibility to add a disclaimer.
>
> Normally I'd use altermime as a content filter that puts the mail
> back into
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Ben Koetter
> * Simon Brereton :
> > > > Saslfinger -s says:
> > >
> > > saslfinger also reports much other, useful information which we
> need
> > > to debug your problem. Please post complete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We already know it is not Postix's fault, as the reason lies at the
network level, but I'm writing to the list in the hope that someone
might have seen this behaviour, as I have been thrashing over Google
finding nothing useful.
Symptom:
Big (>1736267
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:30:17PM +0200, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> We already know it is not Postix's fault, as the reason lies at the
> network level, but I'm writing to the list in the hope that someone
> might have seen this behaviour, as I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/11 16:40, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> This system does not exist. This looks fabricated. Post the actual
Sure it does not exist. It is the only part of the log entry that has
been purposefully altered to protect information that is considered
pr
Victoriano Giralt:
> Wireshark shows "TCP window full" several times while Postfix is
> dutifully trying to send the messages and finally the connection is
> reset at TCP level.
This may be the infamous window scaling problem. See below for
workaround.
Wietse
POSTCONF(5)
Just to add a bit but important information: postfix is run with mailboxes
(maildir) on GFS (cluster environment).
After some tweaks with the cluster configuration, test with ping_pong gives a
performance of 2000locks/s, I wonder if it's enough for postfix with a system
of 5000+ user mailboxes..
On 4/13/2011 8:40 AM, Jon Cutting wrote:
-Original message-
To: postfix-users@postfix.org;
From: Noel Jones
Sent: Wed 13-04-2011 14:15
Subject:Re: Postfix Multi and Sendmail
On 4/13/2011 7:58 AM, Jon Cutting wrote:
I've set up a server that uses postmulti for multiple co
Wietse:
> No, the error message is:
>
> ? ? fatal: shared lock active/9978637B4A
>
> Where active/9978637B4A is the relative pathname of the
> queue file.
>
> > Mar 30 07:51:30 mailserver postfix/local[24516]:
> fatal: shared lock active/9978637B4A: Resource temporarily
> unavailable
> > Mar 30
Hey all,
Troubling question.
I made some changes to our SA tagging / blocking score this morning,
then restarted amavis. I had emails piling up in queue just now, like
so:
I did a sudo /etc/init.d/amavis restart
And by the time I could run sudo qshape -s, the queue came up cl
You might want to up the verbose log level in the amavisd.conf, and check your
maillog to see if amavisd its having
(example: connecting to sql if u have it back ended that way). I know the
regular log level sometimes isn't enough.
Might be a good place to start.
HTH
Aly
Sent from my BlackBer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/04/11 17:16, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victoriano Giralt:
>> Wireshark shows "TCP window full" several times while Postfix is
>> dutifully trying to send the messages and finally the connection is
>> reset at TCP level.
>
> This may be the infamous
2011/4/13 Márcio Luciano Donada :
> Hi,
> Got an interesting case today and would like to share an idea with you. IN
> case the link [1]. what happens is that from has a name but that name is an
> e-mail has just passed and another staff automatically is not really from.
> Is there a way to be bloc
Victoriano Giralt:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On 13/04/11 17:16, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Victoriano Giralt:
> >> Wireshark shows "TCP window full" several times while Postfix is
> >> dutifully trying to send the messages and finally the connection is
> >> reset at TCP level.
> >
> > This m
Aly,
Thanks for the reply. I wonder if my restart of amavis did it - I used:
"service amavis restart"
This morning after changing my config files. Recently, I did:
sudo /etc/init.d/amavis restart
The problem seemed to clear up at that point. I don't know that there's
a differ
On 4/13/2011 11:05 AM, Bailey, Damian S. wrote:
Hey all,
Troubling question.
I made some changes to our SA tagging / blocking score this
morning, then restarted amavis. I had emails piling up in
queue just now, like so:
I did a sudo /etc/init.d/amavis restart
And by the time I could run sudo
On 04/13/2011 06:05 PM, Bailey, Damian S. wrote:
Hey all,
Troubling question.
I made some changes to our SA tagging / blocking
score this
morning, then restarted amavis. I had emails piling up in queue just
now, like
so:
I did a sudo /etc/init.d/amavis
On 04/13/2011 03:40 PM, Márcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Hi,
Got an interesting case today and would like to share an idea with
you. IN case the link [1]. what happens is that from has a name but
that name is an e-mail has just passed and another staff automatically
is not really from. Is there a
On 04/13/2011 07:43 AM, Rich Wales wrote:
Thanks, Jeroen, for your critique of my master.cf file.
Per your suggestions, I'm removing the no_header_body_checks from my
smtp configuration. I'm also moving the smtpd_recipient_restrictions
into my main.cf, and making sure it's overridden as needed
On 04/12/2011 08:09 PM, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hi, on occassion, I'm noting rejected emails without any specific
reason logged. Without a reason, it's hard to pinpoint a fix to allow
legit emails through. Here's an example from my mail log:
Apr 12 13:15:10 postal2 postfix/smtpd[22543]: conn
On 4/13/2011 1:02 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 04/13/2011 06:05 PM, Bailey, Damian S. wrote:
Hey all,
Troubling question.
I made some changes to our SA tagging / blocking score this
morning, then restarted amavis. I had emails piling up in
queue just now, like so:
I did a sudo /etc/init.d/am
Noel Jones put forth on 4/13/2011 7:38 AM:
> Repeat 100 times:
> The client is marked "unknown" if *any* of the three tests fail.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying this Noel, and Sahil. The postconf
documentation covers both reject parameters, but it doesn't explain the
criteria used to decide when
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Simon Brereton
> I turned up mysql logging and did another test - and no query
> appeared in the mysql log! In an effort to prove to myself, I did an
> imap login attempt
On 4/13/2011 5:07 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 4/13/2011 7:38 AM:
Repeat 100 times:
The client is marked "unknown" if *any* of the three tests fail.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying this Noel, and Sahil. The postconf
documentation covers both reject parameters, but it doesn
36 matches
Mail list logo
