Re: Using postfix in CentOS 6 to relay mails to first.l...@gmail.com

Hello - On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html with CentOS 6 I've ended up adding inet_interfaces = all virtual_alias_domains = videoskat.de balkan-preferans.de to /etc/postfix/main.cf and @balkan-preferans.de

Re: Integration of content filter in master.cf

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:24:11 -0600 skrev Noel Jones : > On 1/8/2013 4:11 PM, Titanus Eramius wrote: > > > I've had some trouble seeing the difference > > between -o overrides in main.cf and master.cf, but this really > > helps. > > > > > main.cf parameters are used by all postfix services (but no

Re: Integration of content filter in master.cf

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:59:31 +0100 skrev mouss : > > This raises the question (or at least I think it do), if it's > > possible to "force" the users onto 587 by denying relay access to > > 25? > > fix the problem at the source: force the client to do the work: > use different services for differ

Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers

Hi Guys, I noticed lots of errors like this on my log files: Client host rejected: Please try primary mx first (in reply to RCPT TO command)) So I checked the domain and it has multiple mx servers, with different priority each one. Then I ask: why is postfix using secondary mx server un

Re: Using postfix in CentOS 6 to relay mails to first.l...@gmail.com

Alexander Farber: > Hello - > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html > > with CentOS 6 I've ended up adding > > inet_interfaces = all > virtual_alias_domains = videoskat.de balkan-preferans.de You don't need vi

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

Rafael Azevedo: > Then I ask: why is postfix using secondary mx server unstead of > trying sending to primary first? Is there anyway to force this > out? Why do you believe the error messageas from random mail servers? Postfix always respects the MX preference order. If you believe it does not, t

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

> Why do you believe the error messageas from random mail servers? Because for some reason the secondary mail server is telling me to send to primary first, very simple. If it were sending to primary, then we should not get this error, right? But maybe the DNS is giving me wrong information fo

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

Am 16.01.2013 14:57, schrieb Rafael Azevedo: >> Why do you believe the error messageas from random mail servers? > > Because for some reason the secondary mail server is telling me to send to > primary first, very simple. If it were sending to primary, then we should not > get this error, right?

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

Rafael Azevedo: > > Postfix always respects the MX preference order. If you believe > > it does not, then YOU must show the tcpdump packet recording. > > I do believe that, but for some reason I'm getting this error when > postfix for some reason seems to be sending to secondary MX servers. > When

RE: Problem in postfix (solaris) relay to exchange

> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:30:13 + > From: postfix-us...@dukhovni.org > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: Re: Problem in postfix (solaris) relay to exchange > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 06:18:03PM +, carlos jorge wrote: > > > but I found a difference: > > man postconf -A List

Re: Integration of content filter in master.cf

On 1/16/2013 3:13 AM, Titanus Eramius wrote: > Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:24:11 -0600 skrev Noel Jones > : > >> main.cf parameters are used by all postfix services (but not all >> parameters apply to all services). >> >> Individual services defined in master.cf can override main.cf >> settings with -o ..

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

Thanks to Robert and Wietse, it was very clearful. -- Rafael

Re: Mail sending failures when destination has multiple MX servers'

Rafael Azevedo: > Thanks to Robert and Wietse, it was very clearful. By the way, if you use transport maps, then Postfix does not look up the MX hosts for the recipient domain. Instead it looks up the MX hosts for the domain in the transport map result. If the domain in the transport map result (

check_sasl_access?

Hello, I did not find it in the manpage, in the odd chance I missed it, is there something like check_sasl_access or check_username_access for smtpd_mumble_restrictions? We just had a compromised account being abused for spamming. We had him on the radar before he even got his first mail del

Re: check_sasl_access?

Bernhard Schmidt: > Hello, > > I did not find it in the manpage, in the odd chance I missed it, is > there something like check_sasl_access or check_username_access for > smtpd_mumble_restrictions? > > We just had a compromised account being abused for spamming. We had him > on the radar befor

Re: check_sasl_access?

Am 16.01.2013 22:39, schrieb Wietse Venema: Bernhard Schmidt: Hello, I did not find it in the manpage, in the odd chance I missed it, is there something like check_sasl_access or check_username_access for smtpd_mumble_restrictions? We just had a compromised account being abused for spamming. W

Recommendations for antivirus

I'm running a server on average week we receive 14,000, send 19,000, and in total deferred/bounced/rejected 5,000 -- Can you guys recommend a good antivirus that will work well with postfix. Meaning efficient in processing emails without dropping them into oblivion or kill the server CPU and/or

RE: Recommendations for antivirus

> -Original Message- > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix- > us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of TFML > Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013 7:55 AM > To: Postfix users > Subject: Recommendations for antivirus > > I'm running a server on average week we receive 14,000, send

Re: Recommendations for antivirus

Le 16/01/2013 23:17, Terry Gilsenan a écrit : -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix- us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of TFML Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013 7:55 AM To: Postfix users Subject: Recommendations for antivirus I'm running a server on aver

Re: check_sasl_access?

On 1/16/2013 3:44 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Am 16.01.2013 22:39, schrieb Wietse Venema: >> Bernhard Schmidt: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I did not find it in the manpage, in the odd chance I missed it, is >>> there something like check_sasl_access or check_username_access for >>> smtpd_mumble_restrictio

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

Steve Jenkins: > I've got two machines on my network - mailer1 and mailer2. Both running > Postfix 2.9.5. I've got > > smtp_fallback_relay = mailer2.example.com > > configured in mailer1's main.cf. The way smtp_fallback_relay is implemented, it adds each relay as a low-priority MX host with a sa

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > The way smtp_fallback_relay is implemented, it adds each relay as > a low-priority MX host with a safety check: if the relay does not > resolve, then mail is not bounced. > Hey, Wietse. I appreciate the reply. Ok - as far as I can tell, th

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

Steve Jenkins: > qshape isn't showing deferred mail on mailer1, though. qshape deferred is > all zeros. The active queue is massive, however (over 91K messages in it > now) and more than half of them are in the 1280 column. > > When a destination replies to mailer1 like this: > > Jan 16 16:10:15

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote: > Should that not trigger handing the message over to the fallback relay for > subsequent attempts? > Hold on... maybe it IS handing it off, now that I look at it more closely. This is from mailer1: Jan 16 16:14:32 mailer1 postfix-aol/smtp[17

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > With "smtp_skip_5xx_greeting = yes" by default, Postfix pretends > that the session failed due to a temporary error and tries the next > MX host (or fall-back relay). > > If the mail is still in the active queue then Postfix is still > tryin

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On 1/16/2013 6:23 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote: > So I guess I should change my question - it looks like mailer1 is > attempting to deliver to 5 AOL mail servers before passing off to the > relay. Any way I can make it hand off to the fallback relay with fewer > attempts? Why not simply spread the new

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

Steve Jenkins: > This is from mailer1: [5x 554 greeting] > mtain-mc05.r1000.mx.aol.com ESMTP not accepting connections > Jan 16 16:14:40 mailer1 postfix-aol/smtp[1732]: 97092438FFD: to=< > xx...@example.com>, relay=mailer2.example.com[xx.xx.xx.xx]:25, delay=7365, > delays=6096/1261/8.3/0.13, dsn=2.

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

Steve Jenkins: > I guess my only other option is to turn off smtp_skip_5xx_greeting, in > which case it will hand off to mailer2 on the first failure, correct? Nope. 5xx is a permanent delivery error. Wietse

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Why not simply spread the newsletter load over both your outbounds to > begin with? > Until this week, we were using an OLD server to act as our fallback relay (graveyard) machine and nothing else, since we really couldn't lean on it that

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > You can twiddle with smtp_mx_mumble_limit, but why bother sending > from mailer1, when the mail is accepted only from mailer2? > I think mailer1 got blocked initially by AOL because my aol_destination_concurrency_limit, aol_destination_reci

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > You can twiddle with smtp_mx_mumble_limit FYI - Google returns NO results (nor does the search function on Postfix.org... since it's Google-powered) for "smtp_mx_mumble_limit." Any docs on that? SteveJ

smtp_fallback_relay and greylists

Hello guys! I was reading the smtp_fallback_relay doc at http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_fallback_relay and couldn't be able to make it work. It says: smtp_fallback_relay (default: $fallback_relay) […] With bulk email deliveries, it can be beneficial to run the fallb

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

Steve Jenkins: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > You can twiddle with smtp_mx_mumble_limit > > FYI - Google returns NO results (nor does the search function on > Postfix.org... since it's Google-powered) for "smtp_mx_mumble_limit." Any > docs on that? mumble is a wil

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > mumble is a wild-card. > > grep smtp_mx_ in postconf output. > DOH! Roger that. :) Also, any way to use transport in some way on mailer1 to tell Postfix to use mailer2 for aol.com addresses? I could set that temporarily for the remainder o

Re: smtp_fallback_relay and greylists

Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE: > With bulk email deliveries, it can be beneficial to run the fallback > relay MTA on the same host, so that it can reuse the sender IP > address. This speeds up deliveries that are delayed by IP-based > reputation systems (greylist, etc.). ... > And the logs just shows th

Re: Fiddling with smtp_fallback_relay

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > You can twiddle with smtp_mx_mumble_limit, but why bother sending > from mailer1, when the mail is accepted only from mailer2? > For those who are learning along with me, since I didn't want to leave the smtp_mx_address_limit settings at t

Re: Recommendations for antivirus

On 16/01/13 22:20, Erwan David wrote: Le 16/01/2013 23:17, Terry Gilsenan a écrit : -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix- us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of TFML Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2013 7:55 AM To: Postfix users Subject: Recommendations for

Deferred mail

Hi, I fear I might have misconfigured. Here's my logs: Jan 17 06:14:20 ommuse postfix/smtp[25504]: BC05AF629A: to=< sertacona...@gmail.com>, relay=none, delay=116212, delays=116107/0.02/105/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[74.125.141.26]:25: Connection tim

Re: Deferred mail

Am 17.01.2013 06:20, schrieb Muzaffer: > Jan 17 06:14:20 ommuse postfix/smtp[25504]: BC05AF629A: > to=mailto:sertacona...@gmail.com>>, relay=none, > delay=116212, delays=116107/0.02/105/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred > (connect to alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com >