Em 08/01/2013, às 17:16, Wietse Venema escreveu:
> Reindl Harald:
>>> Big deal. Now I can block all mail for gmail.com by getting 100
>>> email messages into your queue
>>
>> how comes?
>> how do you get gmail.com answer to any delivery from you with 4xx?
>
> He wants to temporarily suspend del
>
> Barring a clean "slow down" signal, and a stable feedback mechanism,
> the only strategy is manually tuned rate delays, and spreading the
> load over multiple sending IPs (Postfix instances don't help if
> they share a single IP).
I have multiple instances of Postfix running on multiple IPs.
I agree with Reindl, I guess Witsie is now better understanding the problem
here.
I'd see this as a "additional feature", not default configuration.
It would be even better if that could be parametrized on named transport basis.
- Rafael
Em 08/01/2013, às 19:02, Reindl Harald escreveu:
>
>
> When faced with a destination that imposes tight rate limits you
> must pre-configure your MTA to always stay under the limits. Nothing
> good happens when the Postfix output rate under load exceeds the
> remote limit whether you throttle the queue repeatedly or not.
But many times we just don'
> That's not what happens when a destination is throttled, all mail
> there is deferred, and is retried some indefinite time later that
> is at least 5 minutes but perhaps a lot longer, and at great I/O
> cost, with expontial backoff for each message based on time in the
> queue, …
I totally disa
I have read the man page and
http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html, but don't think I got
the why of all of it yet.
A couple howtos I have been using as guidance have the following content
for master.cf
pickupfifo n - n 60 1 pickup
-o content_f
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:02:02AM -0200, Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
[ ... ]
> > To understand what one is asking for, one needs to understand the
> > scheduler (qmgr) architecture. Otherwise, one is just babbling
> > nonsense (no offense intended).
>
> Where can I read more about this?
I th
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:02:02AM -0200, Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
> > That's not what happens when a destination is throttled, all mail
> > there is deferred, and is retried some indefinite time later that
> > is at least 5 minutes but perhaps a lot longer, and at great I/O
> > cost, with
Robert Moskowitz:
> I have read the man page and
> http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html, but don't think I got
> the why of all of it yet.
This is an opportunity to improve the world, by pointing out where
the documentation is incomplete or where it presents conflicting
information.
I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and for my
surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs (ips), as shown:
Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.136.216.25] refused to talk to me: 421 4.7.0 [TS02]
Message
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:29:06 -0200
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and for
> my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs (ips),
> as shown:
>
> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
> mta5.am
>> There's gotta be a solution for this.
>
> There is - you need to register your mailserver(s) with yahoo
You mean Yahoo's Feedback Program (feedbackloop.yahoo.net) ?
- Rafael
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:37:00 -0200
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
>
> >> There's gotta be a solution for this.
> >
> > There is - you need to register your mailserver(s) with yahoo
>
> You mean Yahoo's Feedback Program (feedbackloop.yahoo.net) ?
I forget exactly what needs doing, but you defi
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:29:06PM -0200, Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and
> for my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs
> (ips), as shown:
>
> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
>
Wietse:
> My conclusion is that Postfix can continue to provide basic policies
> that avoid worst-case failure modes, but the choice of the settings
> that control those policies is better left to the operator. If the
> receiver slams on the brakes, then Postfix can suspend deliveries,
> but the se
John,
We've already done that.
We do sign ALL messages with DKIM and are also subscribed for Yahoo Feedback
Loop Program.
Still there are few messages being blocked based on users complaints or
"unusual traffic from the IP xxx"…
- Rafael
Em 09/01/2013, às 13:45, John Peach escreveu:
> On We
>> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and
>> for my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs
>> (ips), as shown:
>>
>> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
>> mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.136.216.25] refused to talk to me: 421 4.7
On 01/09/2013 10:21 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Robert Moskowitz:
I have read the man page and
http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html, but don't think I got
the why of all of it yet.
This is an opportunity to improve the world, by pointing out where
the documentation is incomplete or w
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and
> for my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs
> (ips), as shown:
>
> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
> mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.136.216.25] refused to ta
> Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
>> I agree with Reindl, I guess Witsie is now better understanding
>> the problem here.
>
> Please take the effort to spell my name correctly.
Sorry about that Wietse. It was a typo mistake. I didn't intend to offend you.
> When a site sends a small volume of mail, t
> Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
>> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and
>> for my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs
>> (ips), as shown:
>>
>> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
>> mta5.am0.yahoodns.net[98.136.216.25] ref
Now Yahoo is giving another response:
said: 451 Message temporarily deferred - [160] (in reply to end of DATA command)
See, this is very hard to solve. I'm really truing to better understand the
problem in order to find out the best solution. I'd like to thank in advance
for the help, its being
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
> > Why does this difference matter? Once the sending rate drops under
> > rate at which mail enters the mail queue, all strategies become
> > equivalent to throwing away mail.
>
> I'm trying to understand what you said but it doesn't make any sense to me.
When you can
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
> > When all greetings fail with 4xx or whatever then Postfix will
> > suspend deliveries.
>
> I have no idea about what I'm doing wrong, this really doesn't
> happen in my servers.
No it doesn't. Postfix logs "delivery temporarily suspended" and
skips Yahoo until the "d
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
> Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting up pickup service
> for these?
When using advanced content filters with SMTP, the pickup(8) service
is not used
--On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:38 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Should I have RBLs in smtpd_relay_restrictions instead? Or should I have
moved permit_sasl_authenticated into smtpd_recipient_restrictions? Or
something else entirely?
Thanks Noel and Patrick for the responses. I acci
On 01/09/2013 01:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting up pickup service
for these?
When using advanced content filters
On 1/9/2013 12:26 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:38 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> wrote:
>
>> Should I have RBLs in smtpd_relay_restrictions instead? Or should
>> I have
>> moved permit_sasl_authenticated into
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions? Or
>> something
--On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:50 PM -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
On 1/9/2013 12:26 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:38 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Should I have RBLs in smtpd_relay_restrictions instead? Or should
I have
moved permit_sasl_authenticat
On 1/9/2013 10:29 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
> Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting up pickup service
> for these?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
The amavisd-new INSTALL and the README-postfix give detailed
information. Pl
Robert Moskowitz:
>
> On 01/09/2013 01:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >
> >> I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
> >> Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting up pickup service
> >> for th
On 01/07/2013 07:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Randy Ramsdell:
>> What is the configuration forces postfix to honor what is found in
>> virtual_alias_maps ?
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> support@$domain.com LocalAccount
>
> It does.
>
> However, the local(8) delivery agent case-folds recipient
Randy Ramsdell:
> On 01/07/2013 07:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Randy Ramsdell:
> >> What is the configuration forces postfix to honor what is found in
> >> virtual_alias_maps ?
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> support@$domain.com LocalAccount
> >
> > It does.
> >
> > However, the loca
On 01/09/2013 02:15 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/9/2013 10:29 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting up pickup service
for these?
Thank you.
The amavisd-new INSTALL and the README-postfi
On 01/09/2013 02:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Robert Moskowitz:
On 01/09/2013 01:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I DID say that I am going to use amavisd-new along with ClamAV and
Spamassasin. Where is there a writeup of setting
Le 09/01/2013 14:34, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
> I have read the man page and
> http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html, but don't think I
> got the why of all of it yet.
>
> A couple howtos I have been using as guidance have the following
> content for master.cf
>
> pickupfifo n
On 01/09/2013 04:10 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 09/01/2013 14:34, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
I have read the man page and
http://www.postfix.org/BUILTIN_FILTER_README.html, but don't think I
got the why of all of it yet.
A couple howtos I have been using as guidance have the following
content for mast
Is there a way to use the message sender as the address used by the
recipient verification probe? Or is the only control a global
address_verify_sender change?
I'm asking because a mailing list I use must have made a change in their
filters, and is refusing the double-bounce sender address fo
Daniel L. Miller:
> Is there a way to use the message sender as the address used by the
> recipient verification probe?
The feature is called sender address verification, not sender*AND*recipient
address verification. If it had to send different sender address
probes for different recipients, t
On 1/9/2013 4:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
How about: don't address-verify a mailing list that you are subscribed
to. Doing so is pointless. Worse, it may cause mail delivery delays
when they use VERP-style sender addresses that are different with each
mailing list posting.
Fair enough. How
I think there is some misunderstanding here.
On 2013-01-10 01:38, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> On 1/9/2013 4:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > How about: don't address-verify a mailing list that you are
> > subscribed to. Doing so is pointless. Worse, it may cause mail
> > delivery delays when they use
Hi,
I've searched the mailing lists but every time the proposed solution
involves using sender_bcc_maps (or other form of bcc'ing).
The problem with adding a BCC to the incoming email is that other BCC
headers will be dropped to the recipient of my server-side BCC rule.
I want the equivalent of
Daniel L. Miller:
> On 1/9/2013 4:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > How about: don't address-verify a mailing list that you are subscribed
> > to. Doing so is pointless. Worse, it may cause mail delivery delays
> > when they use VERP-style sender addresses that are different with each
> > mailing
On 1/9/2013 4:57 PM, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding here.
On 2013-01-10 01:38, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
On 1/9/2013 4:26 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
How about: don't address-verify a mailing list that you are
subscribed to. Doing so is pointless. Worse, it may cause
On 1/9/2013 5:43 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
check_recipient_access = hash:/etc/postfix/maps/mailing_lists
reject_unverified_recipient,
...
That will do it.
Glad to know I'm on the right track. I'm still doing something wrong.
Naturally I tried to get fancy - I'm using cdb (whi
45 matches
Mail list logo
