Hello,
Le 19/01/2012 08:39, bsd a écrit :
> Le 19 janv. 2012 à 02:18, Wietse Venema a écrit :
>
>> bsd:
>>> I wanted to know what are the symptoms of "SSL_accept error" and
>>> "lost connection after CONNECT" ??
>> The client hangs up when Postfix expects the TLS handshake.
>>
>> There was two way
Hello
If someone could give some links to setup spammassassin
with postfix 2.8 ( FreeBSD ) ... thank you
W dniu 19.01.2012 08:15, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
To demonstrate that fsync alone shouldn't be a factor here,
But it is. I've straced sendmail to "fsync" waiting lot of time. It was
80% or more of queue time.
Queuing 15K messages took 6 minutes 30 seconds on a single 7.2K drive,
again while co
Hi List,
I have setup a mailrelay (outgoing mail only), and I would like to enable
LDAP, so that all users localmail (maymann) on all my servers is send to my
mailrelay and converted into globally-valid-addresses (
michael.maym...@globaldomain.com) and we can read it from our standard
globally-use
On 1/19/12 12:19 PM, Michael Maymann wrote:
Hi List,
I have setup a mailrelay (outgoing mail only), and I would like to
enable LDAP, so that all users localmail (maymann) on all my servers
is send to my mailrelay and converted into globally-valid-addresses
(michael.maym...@globaldomain.com
<
Top-posting fixed, please do not top-post your replies on this list.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:16:22AM +0100, Hervé Hénoch wrote:
> Le 18/01/2012 19:30, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
> >On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:59:46AM +0100, Hervé Hénoch wrote:
> >>In main.cf :
> >>
> >>home_mailbox = Maildir/
On 1/19/2012 1:39 AM, bsd wrote:
>
> Maybe I should use STARTTLS instead of the wrapper mode ?
It's quite common to offer both, which I think is reasonable.
>
> What are the pros and cons of each solution ?
wrappermode is a non-standard legacy mode that some clients prefer.
In their config
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:04:46PM -0800, William Yardley wrote:
> Running the RHEL 5 version of Postfix (2.3.3), and Cyrus SASL from
> version 2.1.22.
>
> Currently, on an auth failure, saslauthd logs the username to
> the auth facility, but not the connecting IP (which presumably
> it doesn't kn
Hello,
When defining options for the submission port (587) daemon in master.cf,
we must re-define explicitly all smtpd_* settings or not, or some
(*which?*) are inherited from the standard main.cf settings? More
specifically, should we define separately:
submission inet n - n
Am 19.01.2012 17:43, schrieb Nikolaos Milas:
> Hello,
>
> When defining options for the submission port (587) daemon in master.cf, we
> must re-define explicitly all smtpd_*
> settings or not, or some (*which?*) are inherited from the standard main.cf
> settings? More specifically, should we
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 06:43:28PM +0200, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> When defining options for the submission port (587) daemon in
> master.cf, we must re-define explicitly all smtpd_* settings or
> not, or some (*which?*) are inherited from the standard main.cf
> settings?
All smtpd_* and relevan
On 1/19/2012 10:43 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When defining options for the submission port (587) daemon in
> master.cf, we must re-define explicitly all smtpd_* settings or not,
> or some (*which?*) are inherited from the standard main.cf settings?
as others have responded, all setti
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:43:28 +0200, Nikolaos Milas
wrote:
> submission inet n - n - - smtpd
>-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
>-o smtpd_enforce_tls=yes
>-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
> ...
> Any other options (except smtpd_*) which we should also redef
On 19/1/2012 8:54 μμ, Mark Alan wrote:
This will give you a fairly secure submission:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix-submission
-o tls_preempt_cipherlist=yes
-o smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers=high
-o smtpd_tls_exclude_ciphers=DES,3D
On 19/1/2012 7:06 μμ, Noel Jones wrote:
or define the restriction in main.cf and refer to it
...
(or make up your own macro names)
Thank you all for your valuable suggestions.
These "macro names" seem really interesting. Can we use them in main.cf
too (to define sets of restrictions) and how
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:24:10PM +0200, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 19/1/2012 7:06 μμ, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> >or define the restriction in main.cf and refer to it
> >...
> >(or make up your own macro names)
>
> Thank you all for your valuable suggestions.
>
> These "macro names" seem really int
Nikolaos Milas:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 19/1/2012 7:06 ??, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> > or define the restriction in main.cf and refer to it
> > ...
> > (or make up your own macro names)
>
> Thank you all for your valuable suggestions.
>
> These "macro names" seem really int
On 1/19/2012 3:24 PM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 19/1/2012 7:06 μμ, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> or define the restriction in main.cf and refer to it
>> ...
>> (or make up your own macro names)
>
> Thank you all for your valuable suggestions.
>
> These "macro names" seem really interesting. Can we use
/dev/rob0:
> If you want to see smtpd_restriction_classes gone crazy, refer to my
> "howto" link from the site below. The particular page & sections you
> would want is 02-postfix-sqlite.howto: see the main.cf and the
> access-rcpt.query file therein. Bring a bottle of aspirin.
That looks like
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:24:31PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> /dev/rob0:
> > If you want to see smtpd_restriction_classes gone crazy, refer
> > to my "howto" link from the site below. The particular page &
> > sections you would want is 02-postfix-sqlite.howto: see the
> > main.cf and the access
From: Robert Fitzpatrick
>To: Postfix
>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
>Subject: Spamcop listed gmail?
>
>Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
>the spamcop site and just looking to see if this is experienced by
>others. Got two calls this morning, both
On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
> W dniu 19.01.2012 08:15, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
>
>> To demonstrate that fsync alone shouldn't be a factor here,
>
> But it is. I've straced sendmail to "fsync" waiting lot of time. It was
> 80% or more of queue time.
>
>> Queuing 15K messages took 6
hi,
this pertains to the issue raised by our unit in barbados, having ip
address 173.225.251.221, i have included the said ip in debug_peer_list
we are getting lot of messages in the mail log showing the following
Jan 20 00:15:21 mailgate postfix/smtpd[18917]: lost connection after EHLO
from unk
On 1/19/2012 9:44 PM, santosh malavade wrote:
> hi,
>
> this pertains to the issue raised by our unit in barbados, having ip
> address 173.225.251.221, i have included the said ip in debug_peer_list
>
> we are getting lot of messages in the mail log showing the following
>
> Jan 20 00:15:21 mail
Hello,
I am evaluating a potential move of a mail server from a dedicated
server to a cloud-based server instance. I am trying to research the
cons (I am comfortable with the pros) of doing so.
>From what I can tell, we have to consider possible performance issues
(e.g., I/O contention), althoug
On Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM, "Steve Fatula" wrote:
>>
>> From: Robert Fitzpatrick
>> To: Postfix
>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
>> Subject: Spamcop listed gmail?
>>
>> Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
>> the spamcop site and just looking to see if th
Hello group,
I was configuring some restrictions on the Postfix level using access map.
It is in has format.
It is has a pretty good number of domains in it. So, I was wondering, how
large can be the file, without affecting the performance?
These are configured in recipient restrictions, so during
Hello.
I'd like to force users to send only e-mails with valid MAIL FROM and
also From: header. I have found out a way to check MAIL FROM and SASL
login and configured my main.cf like this:
smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu)
biff = no
append_dot_mydomain = no
readme_director
W dniu 20.01.2012 01:39, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows that they do fsync 1.5x-2x
slower than 7.2K with quite often 5x-10x slower peak. Together with
On 20.01.2012 04:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[]
>>> But that
>>> alone isn't going to fix a 10x performance deficit. You've probably got
>>> multiple factors degrading performance.
>>
>> Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
>> server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows t
30 matches
Mail list logo
