Hi all.
Sorry because my English.
I squeeze under debian use postfix.
# dpkg -l | grep postfix
ii postfix 2.7.1-1+squeeze1High-performance mail transport agent
Such an experience last night:
1. (smtp) Ask about DNS MX records for the bond.com
2. (smtp) DSN response 0.0.0.0
3. (smtp) con
On 02/08/2012 02:21, Wietse Venema wrote:
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.9.4.html]
Postfix stable release 2.9.4, and legacy releases 2.8.12, 2.7.11,
2.6.17 are available. They contain fixes and workarounds that are
als
On 02.08.2012 09:53, Birta Levente wrote:
You can find the updated Postfix source code at the mirrors listed
at http://www.postfix.org/.
It's not downloadable yet ...
ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html
Best regards,
Morten
On 2 Aug 2012, at 08:38, Varadi Gabor wrote:
Sorry because my English.
No problem. It's *far* better than my Hungarian. :-)
Besides, you've provided full, unedited information -- log entries,
dig output, etc -- which makes it clear exactly what the problem is.
If only everyone did that...
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:18:42AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> First off, this is not a Postfix problem. The MX record for bond.com is
> spectacularly broken. It's an epic fail. That's what needs to be fixed.
I did not say that postfix would be a mistake :)
The log also shows that the "warning: num
On 2012-07-30 8:46 AM, Marco wrote:
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
Please show the problem without logs from other servers.
I'm sorry for word wrap and mix. This is an example:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-09bt7bbY_0MHU4bGduZTFWeGc
An rtf file hosted on google???
Please hel
On 2 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Varadi Gabor wrote:
The log also shows that the "warning: numeric domain name in
resource data of MX record for bond.com: 0.0.0.0"
Yes, I saw that. This should have resulted in a hard error, not a
warning.
I want solutions not only in this case in particular, but
Jim Reid:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Varadi Gabor wrote:
>
> > The log also shows that the "warning: numeric domain name in
> > resource data of MX record for bond.com: 0.0.0.0"
>
> Yes, I saw that. This should have resulted in a hard error, not a
> warning.
If you don't like the result, use
Chad M Stewart:
>
> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
PASS NEW means there was no cache entry. Postfix does not
keep expired entries for eternity
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Chad M Stewart:
>>
>> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
>> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
>> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
>
> PASS NEW means there was no ca
On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Chad M Stewart:
>>>
>>> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
>>> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
>>> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See
Chad M Stewart:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Chad M Stewart:
> >>
> >> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> >> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> >> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
> >
Wietse Venema:
> Chad M Stewart:
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Chad M Stewart:
> > >>
> > >> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> > >> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> > >> PASS OLD but rather PAS
Wietse:
> If you don't like the result, use one of the following in
> the SMTP daemon to block their mail:
>
> check_client_mx_access (ditto for helo, sender, recipient, etc.)
> check_client_mx_access (ditto for helo, sender, recipient, etc.)
[the second one should be check_mumble_ns_access, for
Why I want to replace sendmail by my own "sendmail" (open a tcp
connection to localhost on port 25) is because postfix when he sends the
250 Ok after DATA sending gives the file name:
250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 06F2F1C00B
where 06F2F1C00B is the filename.
Le mercredi 01 août 2012 à 10:50 -0400, Wie
do not top-post
Am 02.08.2012 16:17, schrieb Wael MANAI:
> Le mercredi 01 août 2012 à 10:50 -0400, Wietse Venema a écrit :
>> Wael MANAI:
>> > I am using sendmail to send emails to postfix and I would like to know
>> > if there is a way to get the filename given by postfix?
>>
>> Wietse:
>> > > No
Le jeudi 02 août 2012 à 16:27 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> do not top-post
>
> Am 02.08.2012 16:17, schrieb Wael MANAI:
> > Le mercredi 01 août 2012 à 10:50 -0400, Wietse Venema a écrit :
> >> Wael MANAI:
> >> > I am using sendmail to send emails to postfix and I would like to know
> >> > if
Am 02.08.2012 16:48, schrieb Wael MANAI:
> Le jeudi 02 août 2012 à 16:27 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> do not top-post
>>
>> Am 02.08.2012 16:17, schrieb Wael MANAI:
>> > Le mercredi 01 août 2012 à 10:50 -0400, Wietse Venema a écrit :
>> >> Wael MANAI:
>> >> > I am using sendmail to send emai
Wael MANAI:
> I do not want to touch the queue files. Well, I am developing an
> application for MMS which uses SMTP protocol. When a request msg is sent
> sometimes the destination MMSC does not answer or answer too late. In
> this case I need to close my context and to send an acknowledgement to
Jim Reid:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 14:17, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > The prime directive for Postfix is to deliver mail reliably without
> > sucking from a performance or human interface point of view, and
> > without granting unnecessary privileges to random strangers.
>
> Too bad your prime directiv
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:27:52AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > On 2 Aug 2012, at 14:17, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > The prime directive for Postfix is to deliver mail reliably without
> > > sucking from a performance or human interface point of view, and
> > > without granting unnecessary
On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP
I have a host (A) acting as an MX for host (B). Currently I do this via
relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. Is it possible to do this instead via
virtual_domains and virtual_aliases? Or would a virtual_alias map entry on MX
host A to forward user@B to user@B not work right (because the right
On 8/2/2012 2:02 PM, Michael Durket wrote:
> I have a host (A) acting as an MX for host (B). Currently I do this via
> relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. Is it possible to do this instead via
> virtual_domains and virtual_aliases? Or would a virtual_alias map entry on MX
> host A to forward
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:02:56PM -0700, Michael Durket wrote:
> I have a host (A) acting as an MX for host (B). Currently I do this via
> relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. Is it possible to do this instead via
> virtual_domains and virtual_aliases? Or would a virtual_alias map entry on MX
25 matches
Mail list logo
