On 7/12/2011 1:37 AM, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
>> Configure smtp_tls_security_level and/or smtp_tls_policy_maps, using at
>> least a setting of 'may'. This will allow the SMTP client to attempt
>> STARTTLS connections with remote hosts.
>
> Ah. I t
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 11/07/2011 15:02, Бак Микаел wrote:
>>
>> Easy!
>> Fix the software that your trusted users use to add their domain. Make
>> THAT software check that the domain's MX record points to the right
>> place BEFORE you actually add it to the database.
>
> That's not actually help
Tom Kinghorn:
> On 11/07/2011 15:01, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Rule number one: present actual evidence of the problem. In this
> > case, present actual evidence that mail stays in the Postfix queue.
> >
> > Wietse
>
> Apologies
>
> It was in the queues/incoming directory
>
> #ls -la queues/
On 12/07/2011 08:16, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
What would cause the old files in the queues directory not to be
cleared out.
That situation is unlikely to occur, if ever.
If they are not picked up, they were not sent either.
Hi List
On further investigation, I noticed that the files which re
On 12/07/2011 13:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
How many times per week do you execute "postfix stop"?
Wietse
I myself very rarely do, but I am unsure how many times the
other admin's do.
They love writing scripts to do all sorts of things.
restarting postfix is probably one of them.
But th
Tom Kinghorn:
> Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/smtpd[27176]: 461D2412E34:
> client=localhost[127.0.0.1]
> Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/master[1687]: warning: process
> /usr/lib/postfix/cleanup pid 16159 killed by signal 6
"signal 6" means that the cleanup daemon logged a "panic" message
that specifi
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:12:29 +0200
Tom Kinghorn articulated:
> I myself very rarely do, but I am unsure how many times the
> other admin's do.
>
> They love writing scripts to do all sorts of things.
> restarting postfix is probably one of them.
> But then, they will never admit to it.
Then migh
Wietse Venema:
> Tom Kinghorn:
> > Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/smtpd[27176]: 461D2412E34:
> > client=localhost[127.0.0.1]
> > Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/master[1687]: warning: process
> > /usr/lib/postfix/cleanup pid 16159 killed by signal 6
>
> "signal 6" means that the cleanup daemon logged a
On 12/07/2011 14:28, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
Tom Kinghorn:
Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/smtpd[27176]: 461D2412E34:
client=localhost[127.0.0.1]
Jul 12 12:05:29 mx1 postfix/master[1687]: warning: process
/usr/lib/postfix/cleanup pid 16159 killed by signal 6
"signal 6" means that the
On 7/12/2011 12:16 AM, jeffrey starin wrote:
> I am trying to use the smtp_bind_address command so that three
> seperate ips can be used for 3 separate clients who are using email
> campaign software as explained in this howto:
> http://www.kutukupret.com/2010/01/02/postfix-bind-sender-domain-to-d
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 7/12/2011 1:37 AM, Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
>
>>> Configure smtp_tls_security_level and/or smtp_tls_policy_maps, using at
>>> least a setting of 'may'. This will allow the SMTP client to att
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:42:51PM +0200, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> is perfectly fine. And unless you have rather strict security
> requirements (in which case your ruleset would allow far less protocols
> to begin with), you can simply accept everything in the OUTPUT chain:
>
> iptables -P OUTPU
On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2011 10:12 PM, Ron Garret wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>>
On 7/11/2011 8:12 PM, Ron Garret wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a relay hos
On 7/12/2011 10:59 AM, Ron Garret wrote:
>> Since this is a server to server relay of known/trusted systems, and
>> assuming that 184.73.65.10 is static and won't change any time soon, why
>> not simply add 184.73.65.10 to $mynetworks on secure.genesisgroup.info
>> and forget the sasl auth junk?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 11:16 PM, jeffrey starin wrote:
> > I am trying to use the smtp_bind_address command so that three seperate
> ips
> > can be used for 3 separate clients who are using email campaign software
> as
> > explained in this howto:
> >
On 7/12/2011 4:34 PM, jeffrey starin wrote:
> I don't know where you saw 2.3.3 but will nevertheless take your
> suggestions and re-install.
I hope you read my comments made 8 hours ago before you do this. It is
probably not necessary.
(Archive: http://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=13104744202876
> > smtp_bind_address is a new feature as of 2.7, clearly stated at the top
No, smtp_bind_address is available in all Postfix versions since 2001.
If Postfix complains like this:
postfix/master[5309]: /etc/postfix/master.cf: line 6: bad transport type:
smtp_bind_address=174.121.222.21
then lin
Le 12/07/2011 06:16, jeffrey starin a écrit :
> I am trying to use the smtp_bind_address command so that three seperate ips
> can be used for 3 separate clients who are using email campaign software as
> explained in this howto:
> http://www.kutukupret.com/2010/01/02/postfix-bind-sender-domain-to-d
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:22:03PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > smtp_bind_address is a new feature as of 2.7, clearly stated at the top
>
> No, smtp_bind_address is available in all Postfix versions since 2001.
>
> If Postfix complains like this:
>
> postfix/master[5309]: /etc/postfix/mast
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 02:38:41PM +0200, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> I have found this in the amavis logs, which could be the culprit
>
> amavis[27010]: (27010-01-12) (!!)TROUBLE in check_mail: forwarding FAILED:
> Error writing to socket: Broken pipe at (eval 97) line 186.
>
Symptom not cause.
--
On 7/12/2011 4:22 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> smtp_bind_address is a new feature as of 2.7, clearly stated at the top
>
> No, smtp_bind_address is available in all Postfix versions since 2001.
Correct. I got in hurry. Apologies. The 2.7 feature in the 'how-to'
article he linked was:
sender_d
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:35:56 -0400
Victor Duchovni articulated:
> Indeed. Returning to the original topic though, I have a postmast(1)
> patch that adds a new utility that does with master.cf what
> postconf(1) does with main.cf. In particular it supports:
>
> postmast - show all entries in
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:35:56 -0400
> Victor Duchovni articulated:
>
> > Indeed. Returning to the original topic though, I have a postmast(1)
> > patch that adds a new utility that does with master.cf what
> > postconf(1) does with main.cf.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Starin wrote:
> On 7/9/2011 10:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 09.07.2011 16:40, schrieb Jeffrey Starin:
>>
NEVER do any source-install over a installed RPM and i guess yu
can not remove the rpm-package beause of dependencies
the oth
On 12/07/2011 14:28, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
If it's an abort in a library routine, then these instructions
may help to identify the culprit.
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#gdb
Wietse
morning List
The output of the debugging as advised by Wietse produces as err
25 matches
Mail list logo
