Am 2013-04-15 07:27 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
We've been told that this kernel upgrade created the problem. Simply
reverting to the previous kernel should fix it.
I wager the OP upgraded more than just the kernel, or upgraded the
kernel in-place, Russian Roulette style. ;)
The lesson learned is th
On 2013-04-14 6:30 PM, Joan Moreau wrote:
Le 14/04/2013 22:24, Viktor Dukhovni a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:21:58PM +, Joan Moreau wrote:
However, how can postfix NOT use the only openssl library ? or fail
to have SHA2 when loading the .so ?
Find a less broken operating system.
On 13 Apr 2013, at 09:29 , Sahil Tandon wrote:
> None. Postfix is using libc, which appears in your ldd(1) output, and
> contains the Berkeley DB 1.85 routines.
Ah-hah, thank you for that.
--
Hi,
I'm sorry for the delay, but I'm very busy in some projects.
I continue the discussion with my opinion and some details.
No virtual machines and no multi instance solution: we have more than 10.000
customers, so these solutions are not applicable. We don't want to classify
them (in order to
Le 15/04/2013 10:24, Charles Marcus a écrit :
On 2013-04-14 6:30 PM, Joan Moreau wrote:
Le 14/04/2013 22:24, Viktor Dukhovni a écrit : On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at
10:21:58PM +, Joan Moreau wrote: However, how can postfix NOT use
the only openssl library ? or fail to have SHA2 when loading the
Am 15.04.2013 13:57, schrieb Joan Moreau:
> Le 15/04/2013 10:24, Charles Marcus a écrit :
> Roll back to the previous kernel.
>
> Seriously. If you updated the kernel but didn't keep the last known
> good/working one, then hopefully you have learned why doing this is such
> a good idea and will
Since we have upgraded to Solaris 11.1 from Solaris 11viathe IPS
repository, we are observing the following in our Postfix smtp mail
relay logs:
Apr 15 13:27:34 smtp-server postfix/smtp[25213]: [ID 947731 mail.crit]
fatal: stream_connect: send file descriptor: Resource temporarily
unavailable
On Apr 15, 2013, at 13:57, Joan Moreau wrote:
> Le 15/04/2013 10:24, Charles Marcus a écrit :
>
>>> On 2013-04-14 6:30 PM, Joan Moreau wrote:
>>> Le 14/04/2013 22:24, Viktor Dukhovni a écrit : On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at
>>> 10:21:58PM +, Joan Moreau wrote: However, how can postfix NOT use the
Am 15.04.2013 14:14, schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
> Besides, aren't the odd kernel versions such as 3.5.x, 3.7.x etc. development
> kernels?
why should they?
since kernel 2.6 released around 10 years ago the versioning is no longer this
way
and 3.0.x is only a renumbering from 2.6.40
https://www.k
Hi,
sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
"The local-part of a mailbox
Am 15.04.2013 14:24, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
> there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
> is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
> localpart case sensiv
On 4/15/2013 8:24 AM, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Hi,
sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
localpart case sensivity accordin
>> localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
>>
>> "The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive."
> You are misunderstanding. Relaying MTAs MUST treat the local-part as
> case sensitive. IOW, until the message is received at the destination,
> case must be preserved. However
On 4/15/2013 9:44 AM, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
"The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive."
You are misunderstanding. Relaying MTAs MUST treat the local-part as
case sensitive. IOW, until the message is received at the destination
Coming back to original example of a one-million message queue:
Postfix is designed to survive extreme overload, but all mail will
be delayed. This is no different than the road to the airport:
when it becomes full, all vehicles will be delayed. Both the Postfix
scheduler and the road to the airpo
Jan P. Kessler:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
> there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
> is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
> localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
>
>
On 4/15/2013 7:24 AM, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
> there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
> is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
> localpart case sensivity
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
Geoff Shang:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
You need to do "postfix reload" after editing master.cf.
I did. I did it again for good measure - no difference.
Are you using receive_override_options? in main.cf or master.cf?
No.
Geoff.
Jaco Lesch:
> Since we have upgraded to Solaris 11.1 from Solaris 11viathe IPS
> repository, we are observing the following in our Postfix smtp mail
> relay logs:
>
> Apr 15 13:27:34 smtp-server postfix/smtp[25213]: [ID 947731 mail.crit]
> fatal: stream_connect: send file descriptor: Resource t
On 4/15/2013 6:57 AM, Joan Moreau wrote:
> Reverted to 3.7.10. Recompiled openssl + cyrus + posfix . Same errors.
> Where does the inconsistency reside ?
You will probably not get the answer from the Postfix mailing list, as
this is not a problem with Postfix, and it appears that nobody here is
w
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Giorgio Luchi wrote:
> How can we implement round-robin by sender ip/authenticated user
> and to preserve the memory constraint too?
>
> - "sender" is the sender's ip address or the authenticated user
>name (i.e. "80.93.143.50" or "giorgio.luchi")
>
Hello,
I have postscreen working fine, on localhost, with memcached though am getting
confused on how one sets it up for multi-server usage ? We would like out two
front-end MTAs to share any IPs that have been added to the cache. How would we
achieve this please ?
Many thanks.
Am 2013-04-05 12:36, schrieb Giorgio Luchi:
- User A [...] sends 1 different email to 1 million
of different domain destinations
[...]
- User B [...] sends an email to a different more domain destinatio
Doesn't this scream for two different postfix instances?
- One high priority instance with
Phil Daws:
> I have postscreen working fine, on localhost, with memcached though
> am getting confused on how one sets it up for multi-server usage
> ? We would like out two front-end MTAs to share any IPs that have
> been added to the cache. How would we achieve this please ?
postscreen requires
Dear Gentle Folk,
I wish to relay all mail from our outgoing mail server,
smtp.lightlink.com, through a default outgoing barracuda, EXCEPT mails
FROM specified addresses that wish to do large authorized mailings that
tend to bury the barracuda. These exceptions should be delivered di
Homer Wilson Smith:
> #relayhost =
>
> sender_dependent_relayhost_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relayhost
>
> relayhost file says
>
> * [barracuda.lightlink.com]:25
> frien...@spammer.com :
I don't know what "*" or ":" is supposed to mean. They certainly
are not documented
Thanks to anybody for sharing your opinions and thoughts. I decided that
the default rate limit functions will operate completely
case-insensitive, because this seems to be what people (including me)
expect. As most people also seem to have expected that behaviour in the
past, I think this is one o
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:17:23PM -0400, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>
> Dear Gentle Folk,
>
> I wish to relay all mail from our outgoing mail server,
> smtp.lightlink.com, through a default outgoing barracuda, EXCEPT
> mails FROM specified addresses that wish to do large authorized
> mail
On 4/15/2013 1:59 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Daws:
>> I have postscreen working fine, on localhost, with memcached though
>> am getting confused on how one sets it up for multi-server usage
>> ? We would like out two front-end MTAs to share any IPs that have
>> been added to the cache. How wou
Can I receive an email every time I have a rejection ?
30 matches
Mail list logo
