Hi,
I have finally figured out the problem and it was nothing to do with Postfix.
The application on the local server had been misconfigured and was supplying an
incorrect value (undefined) to the BCC field which had been completely
overlooked in the logs.
Apologies for taking up your time o
Thank you for notice Bill. I'll try paste all again as text:
I noticed that in my postfix configuration there is a problem with
${original_recipient} which is not set or is overwritten by
${recipient}
My master.cf is below. The problem is that in the autoresponder -r
${original_recipient} is equal
Thanks everyone. Troubleshooting was much pain. I built it from scratch
and it works fine now.
Re,
--
// Subin
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 08:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Christian R??ner wrote:
Debian turns on chroot in master.cf.
See http://www
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:56:48AM -0700, Artyum wrote:
> Thank you for notice Bill. I'll try paste all again as text:
>
> I noticed that in my postfix configuration there is a problem with
> ${original_recipient} which is not set or is overwritten by
> ${recipient}
> My master.cf is below. The pr
Dear Viktor, you're probably right but that would be one of possible
ways to do auto-responses. However in this case the autoresponser is
not the clue. The original_recipient should work as expected,
shouldn't it ? I tried to use no_address_mappings in master.cf and
autoresponder_destination_recipi
Vijay Rajah:
> Hello,
>
> I need to send mails from one of my servers, with a sender address that
> is non-existent (EX: no-re...@mydomain.tld)..
>
> The mail-hub (postfix 2.11) is rejecting the sender address, with
>
> Sender address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table)
>
> I susp
On 30 Sep 2014, at 23:22 , Vijay Rajah wrote:
> I need to send mails from one of my servers, with a sender address that is
> non-existent (EX: no-re...@mydomain.tld)..
>
> The mail-hub (postfix 2.11) is rejecting the sender address, with
>
> Sender address rejected: User unknown in virtual mail
I am implementing a safety net for incompatible Postfix configuration
changes. After a Postfix upgrade, this will allow you to keep
running Postfix with the historical default settings, during which
time Postfix will log all uses of any old default value that will
be affected by an incompatible ch
Hello,
as I see/understand it, a check_client_access lookup that returns
PERMIT will skip over the rest of smtpd_client_restrictions but WILL
still run the checks in the other smtpd_*_restrictions classes, right?
I can't find that information in the SMTPD_ACCESS_README or other
documents. (I can'
Am 01.10.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger:
> as I see/understand it, a check_client_access lookup that returns
> PERMIT will skip over the rest of smtpd_client_restrictions but WILL
> still run the checks in the other smtpd_*_restrictions classes, right?
i would say PERMIT is uncondition
Sebastian Wiesinger:
> Hello,
>
> as I see/understand it, a check_client_access lookup that returns
> PERMIT will skip over the rest of smtpd_client_restrictions but WILL
> still run the checks in the other smtpd_*_restrictions classes, right?
>
> I can't find that information in the SMTPD_ACCESS
I have been thinking of maybe putting up an experimental
anti-spam blocklist server. As far as the client interface,
this would operate in the usual way, i.e. via DNS, just as
all of the current well-known blacklists do.
Due to the (backend) nature of the thing however, it would
probably only pr
Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> I have been thinking of maybe putting up an experimental
> anti-spam blocklist server. As far as the client interface,
> this would operate in the usual way, i.e. via DNS, just as
> all of the current well-known blacklists do.
>
> Due to the
:-)
Two mail servers: `sth1.domain.tld' and `sth2.domain.tld'. Each serves
only one (non-virtual) domain. I need to transparently move a few user
accounts from `sth1' to `sth2'. That is: for some users the maildir is
moved from `sth1' to `sth2' and served (SMTP/IMAP) by `sth2' instead of
`sth1' bu
* Wietse Venema [2014-10-01 19:03]:
> Sebastian Wiesinger:
> > Hello,
> >
> > as I see/understand it, a check_client_access lookup that returns
> > PERMIT will skip over the rest of smtpd_client_restrictions but WILL
> > still run the checks in the other smtpd_*_restrictions classes, right?
> >
On 10/1/2014 12:20 PM, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> :-)
>
> Two mail servers: `sth1.domain.tld' and `sth2.domain.tld'. Each serves
> only one (non-virtual) domain. I need to transparently move a few user
> accounts from `sth1' to `sth2'. That is: for some users the maildir is
> moved from `sth1' to `s
On 30.09.14, 16:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
> giacomo:
> > Hello at all,
> > I would like to split email from an external mail server (from my ISP) to
> > an internal mail server. The ISP receive all mail of the domain in one
> > mail address (the server use zimbra with postfix).
>
> Does this mea
giacomo:
> On 30.09.14, 16:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > giacomo:
> > > Hello at all,
> > > I would like to split email from an external mail server (from my ISP) to
> > > an internal mail server. The ISP receive all mail of the domain in one
> > > mail address (the server use zimbra with postfix)
In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
"li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
>> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for DNS responses that were
>> not forthcoming?
>
>no - no answer i
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
> >Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
> >> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for DNS responses that were
> >>
Am 01.10.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
>> Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
>>> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for D
In message <3j7sdd1mnszb...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
>> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>>
>> >Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> >> What would happen in such a case?
Postfix doesn't have any type of automatic detection of any
malfunctioning blacklists, it may be configurable on how long to wait
for a response, I'm not sure on that, but no dynamic changing of what
is being used, if you think that one though, postfix shouldn't do
anything like that. Would tempt p
Wietse:
> >See "man 5 resolver" for timeouts, retry counts, etc.
>
> But clients of a typical resolver library (e.g. Postfix) may
> optionally request either more or fewer retries. No?
>
> So I was asking what Postfix does.
There is no supported API for retry/timeout settings as far as I
can te
In message
Paul C wrote:
>Postfix doesn't have any type of automatic detection of any
>malfunctioning blacklists, it may be configurable on how long to wait
>for a response, I'm not sure on that, but no dynamic changing of what
>is being used, if you think that one though, postfix shouldn't do
In message <3j7vdm3rglzb...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Wietse:
>There is no supported API for {DNS} retry/timeout settings as far as I
>can tell. Whacking bits in the __res structure does not count.
>
>Maybe it can be set with environment variables, but that
>may require support to do:
>
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <3j7vdm3rglzb...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>
Wietse:
>There is no supported API for {DNS} retry/timeout settings as far as I
>can tell. Whacking bits in the __res structure does not count.
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> Mostly, I just wanted to know if Postfix
27 matches
Mail list logo
