Hi, I appreciate the development of multiple instances
features thanks you for making it working so easy.
I have a few domains that are light traffic right now,
low volume mail but in future will become heavily using.
Theres not a big need to have separate IP address or
separate Postfix instances
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:52:27AM -0700, E.B. wrote:
> Hi, I appreciate the development of multiple instances
> features thanks you for making it working so easy.
>
> I have a few domains that are light traffic right now,
> low volume mail but in future will become heavily using.
> Theres not a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:08:43PM -0700, PGNd wrote:
> + transport_maps = lmdb:/usr/local/etc/postfix/salearn_transport
> +
> static:relay-vpn:[internal.mail-backend..com]:12345
>
> + /salearn_transport
> + spam.spam sa-spam:
> +
Viktor,
Thanks for the excellent write-up:
> > My question is if there is general impact that every new
> > Postfix instance has? Assuming that the volume of mail
> > would be handled on the same server one way or another,
> > what kind of impact does it have to run one postfix instance
> > on ea
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 07:58:56AM -0700, E.B. wrote:
> > * One pickup(8) daemon that scans a maildir queue
> > once a minute. This is optional. Just set
> > authorized_submit_users empty, and comment out
> > pickup in master.cf.
>
> Good tip. This is locally (/usr/sbin/se
I've removed all of the extras possible from my main.cf and am running
the most basic postfix config now.
Here is the output of postconf -n
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/234332/26834143/
I am still seeing the errors in the log files. =(
What should my next troubleshooting steps be?
Thanks in
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:15:51AM -0600, Nick Winn wrote:
> I've removed all of the extras possible from my main.cf and am running
> the most basic postfix config now.
>
> Here is the output of postconf -n
>
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/234332/26834143/
>
> I am still seeing the errors in
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 07:56 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Thanks for digging into this.
> As soon as I saw this, I said to myself "it'll loop". Not
> surprisingly, it does.
I'll trust the stmt, and need to stare at the flow more closely to be able to
come to the same immediate conclusion.
Nick Winn:
> I've removed all of the extras possible from my main.cf and am running
> the most basic postfix config now.
>
> Here is the output of postconf -n
>
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/234332/26834143/
>
> I am still seeing the errors in the log files. =(
>
> What should my next troublesh
Hello, I have CentOS 6 system running 2.6.6 version of postfix. This is low volume mail server with roughly 400messages being sent through it during the day to my google apps domain. I've ran it for awhile without any issues,but recently I've started seeing issues with sending emails to my google
There is only one scheduler, and it applies the same rule for new
mail and delayed mail.
However, rate delays have no effect if you restart the queue manager
with "postfix reload".
Wietse
Does anyone know if there's a way to add a custom perl policy to
Postscreen (tests carried out before the 220 SMTP server greeting)?
It doesn't look as though this is allowed.
Best regards,
Mick.
Mick:
> Does anyone know if there's a way to add a custom perl policy to
> Postscreen (tests carried out before the 220 SMTP server greeting)?
> It doesn't look as though this is allowed.
Indeed. Use postscreen to eliminate *most* spambots as cheaply as possible.
Use smtpd policies for the rest.
Wietse Venema wrote:
Mick:
Does anyone know if there's a way to add a custom perl policy to
Postscreen (tests carried out before the 220 SMTP server greeting)?
It doesn't look as though this is allowed.
Indeed. Use postscreen to eliminate *most* spambots as cheaply as possible.
Use smt
thanks again for responding! .
> > Is it overkill to go 10-20 multiple instances vs. single
> > instance with:
> >
> > - one submission per IP
> > - one smtp bound to each IP
>
> You've not yet made a good case for dedicating an instance
> per domain, instead of running all the domains on a si
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 01:32:11PM -0700, E.B. wrote:
> Can anyone provide reference to another thread on the list
> or any studies where people give some rough numbers? I'd like
> to figure out for our hardware where our limit might be, even
> in a very very general sense. I dont know if I'm goin
On 2015-06-18 12:52 pm, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
On 18/06/2015 14:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
Some tools understand smtpd logging very well, but they need to be
updated because postscreen logging is different. Wietse
Is there any "recent" Howto or like, for fail2ban and postfix
(postscreen, sa
I've a postfix frontend instance that
-- relays only for specific domains
-- uses remote address verification
to a postfix backend.
Frontend config includes
/main.cf
myhostname= mailhost..com
mydomain = mail..com
On 6/19/2015 7:33 PM, PGNd wrote:
> I've a postfix frontend instance that
>
> -- relays only for specific domains
> -- uses remote address verification
>
> to a postfix backend.
>
> Frontend config includes
>
> /main.cf
> myhostname= mailhost..com
>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 06:44 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> You can control it with a check_recipient_access map in place of
> your blanket reject_unverified_recipient.
Ah.
My goal is:
-- for {spam,ham}.1...@mail..com accept & pipe to FILTER
'sa-spam'/'sa-ham', respectively
--
Thank you Viktor!
Subject: Re: Resource usage of multiple instances
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at
01:32:11PM -0700, E.B. wrote:
> Can anyone provide reference to another
thread on the list
> or any studies where
peopl
21 matches
Mail list logo
