* Julien Vehent :
> Hi Folks,
>
> Like others before me, I'm curious about how well postscreen
> performs in the real world.
>
> I'm writing an article on Postscreen for the french issue of linux
> magazine. I got the setup part covered fine, but miss some
> statistics on how it runs.
> I have lo
On 11/4/2011 7:44 PM, Noah wrote:
> I have problems with a lot of memory needed for indexing my mbox by
> dovecot and wondering if I transitioned from mbox to Maildir if that
> would help with the indexing processing? If so is there a good tutorial
> for moving postfix from mbox to Maildir?
It s
On 11/5/2011 1:23 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 7:43 PM, Noah wrote:
>
>
>> and there is a corresponding (Command time limit exceeded:
>> "/usr/bin/procmail") log entry in /var/log/mail.log
>>
>> so what can I do to circumvent procmail from claiming a time out. is
>> there a global ser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
| The solution to your problem is probably as simple as switching Postfix
| to use dovecot-lda.
This is very true.
| Instructions for Dovecot 2.x are here:
| http://wiki2.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix
I've found that, with Dovecot 2.x
Zitat von "martijn.list" :
Hi,
I have a after queue content filter. The content filter injects the
email back into Postfix after filtering the email, aka reinjection port.
After reinjecting the email, I would like Postfix to relay the email to
a different host than the default relay host, i.e.,
On Friday 04 November 2011 14:07:36 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Benny Pedersen:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:45:47 -0700, David Southwell wrote:
> > > policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
> > >
> > > user=nobody argv=/usr/local/sbin/postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> >
> > n
Am 05.11.2011 01:12, schrieb Julien Vehent:
There is a script to do the log parsing:
https://github.com/jvehent/Postscreen-Stats
Any short report (without the IPs) would be interesting. If,
additionally, you can calculate the geo-localisation, that would be
great (but querying the database on hos
Hello,
I didn't thing, that my Postfix is the bad guy, but if the client is
Evolution (in SSL+SASL connection with the ISPs server), the
messages goes out without problem.
The problem is only if Postfix is the client ?!
Why ?
I have try yours "to modify executable" way.
The "AUTH=<>" is in /us
On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
> Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
identify the
> error?
[...]
> policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
Is there whitespace at the beginning of this line? You have to remove it.
man 5 master.
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:13:17 Kamil Raczyński wrote:
> On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
> > Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
>
> identify the
>
> > error?
>
> [...]
>
> > policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
>
> Is
David Southwell:
> > Yes, because of a master.cf configuration error.
>
> Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me identify the
Have you run lsof or netstat already, to find out if
postfix is listening on the policyd-spf socket?
Do you prefer to debate the number of legs o
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:57:26 Wietse Venema wrote:
> David Southwell:
> > > Yes, because of a master.cf configuration error.
> >
> > Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me identify
> > the
>
> Have you run lsof or netstat already, to find out if
> postfix is listeni
Julien Vehent:
> I'm also open to suggestions on how to improve the script. I'm no
> python expert, and there are probably tons of interesting information to
> extract from the postscreen logs.
To improve the script, you could count both the totals and per-client
stats. For my own tiny mail serv
David Southwell:
> Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted the
> primary cause. It was he who spotted the extra " " before policyd-spf in
> master.cf which was in the part of the post you cut out.
>
> So you were right it was an error in the master.cf but noone e
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:33:27 David Southwell wrote:
> On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:13:17 Kamil Raczyński wrote:
> > On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
> > > Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
> >
> > identify the
> >
> > > error?
> >
> > [...]
>
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
> David Southwell:
> > Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
> > the primary cause. It was he who spotted the extra " " before
> > policyd-spf in master.cf which was in the part of the post you cut out.
> >
On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell wrote:
> On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
>> David Southwell:
>> > Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
>> > the primary cause. It was he who spotted the extra " " before
>> > policyd-spf in mast
On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Simon Brereton wrote:
> On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> David Southwell:
> >> > Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
> >> > the primary cause
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 07:03:18 -0700
David Southwell articulated:
> In this case Kemil spotted the error. That helped me spot other
> errors. Kemil was constructive IMHPO Wietse was plain rude.
In that case, cross Wietse off your Christmas card list and add Kemil.
The users of this list are offerin
I have cut all the irrelevant and whiny crap from the quotes, and I
ask that others please not continue that off-topic and useless
discussion. One part of this, q.v., deserves to be addressed.
On Saturday 05 November 2011 09:03:18 David Southwell wrote:
> On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Si
On Saturday 05 November 2011 07:50:58 /dev/rob0 wrote:
> I have cut all the irrelevant and whiny crap from the quotes, and I
> ask that others please not continue that off-topic and useless
> discussion. One part of this, q.v., deserves to be addressed.
>
> On Saturday 05 November 2011 09:03:18 Da
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
On 05/11/11 17:40, David Southwell wrote:
> Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
> is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
Telling people, member of an affirmed community, that what they are
currently doing is idiotic
On 05/11/11 17:30, David Southwell wrote:
> The problem you identify in subsequent lines, has its roots in postfix's
> rather primitive formatting structure.
>
> If it were replace by something like:
> {submission (variant,modifier [connector] data )
> (variant = data)
> (varian
On 11/5/11 12:40 PM, David Southwell wrote:
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
Since it is an integral part of the Mail Format RFC (RFC 2822) as the
way to indicate that hea
On Fri, November 4, 2011 12:07 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> If this is an MX host, you need to allow mail to your own domains
> before you "reject" to, otherwise only your own users will be
> able to send you email.
>
> Since the sender address and the SASL login account are not
> necessarily th
Am 06.11.2011 04:17, schrieb Chris Richards:
> Yes, I agree that I'm attacking the wrong end of this problem;
> unfortunately that's not my call. Others who 'know more' than me have
> made that decision.
so tell them if they think they know more than you they should
make the job themself and di
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 10:17:00PM -0500, Chris Richards wrote:
> Victor, yes I figured out about reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch
> and smtpd_sender_login_maps. I'm still working that out, but I don't
> believe that is going to be an issue.
On my personal email server, I use non-Postf
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of David Southwell
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Cc: /dev/rob0
> Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
29 matches
Mail list logo
