Hi Viktor...
excellent info, thanks a lot...
But then... why when a smtp dies due to watchdoug timeout, all other smtp
processes die as well and there is no
kind of respawn?? (until qmgr tires delivery again, of course)
Thanks again!
Pedro.
On Mon
Thanks Wietse...
it seems not a local performance issue (not virtual and very powerful) but a
remote problem...
when destination takes too long to send the final OK back, watchdog timeout
happens.. and then
all other smtp deliveries go down... apparently due to no smtp process (as it
exited
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:20 AM, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> it seems not a local performance issue (not virtual and very powerful) but a
> remote problem...
>
> when destination takes too long to send the final OK back, watchdog timeout
> happens.. and then
> all other smtp deliveries go do
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> it seems not a local performance issue (not virtual and very
> powerful) but a remote problem...
Watchdog timeouts are ALWAYS A LOCAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE.
See also Viktor's posting. Present concrete information or *** the hell up.
Wietse
Viktor
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 08:03 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Sorry, that's:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_client_ns_access
Ugh. I should have just searched for 'ns_access'. Thanks.
I'm not 100% sure why it's a "client" rule instead of a "sender" rule. Looking
at
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> Any change in your configuration is not the result of upstream
> changes in Postfix. The "relay_domains" element is still there
> even in 3.2 snapshots.
OK, let's assume that the change was caused by a vendor patch to 2.9
that they undid
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 07:33:23AM -0700, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 08:03 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Sorry, that's:
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_client_ns_access
>
> Ugh. I should have just searched for 'ns_access'. Thanks.
>
> I'
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:17:52AM -0700, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > Any change in your configuration is not the result of upstream
> > changes in Postfix. The "relay_domains" element is still there
> > even in 3.2 snapshots.
>
> OK,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> According to my reading of the documentation, if $relay_domains
>> includes ".example.com", it should relay mail for "sub.example.com",
>> regardless of whether or not "relay_domains" is included in
>> $parent_domain_matches_subdomains.
>
> Thi
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016, at 08:29 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> A client lookup looks up the client hostname (if forward-confirmed
> reverse DNS) and IP address (in any case.)
>
> A helo lookup looks up the client's hostname as it gave in the
> HELO/EHLO command.
>
> A sender lookup looks up the sender
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:42:12AM -0700, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> >> According to my reading of the documentation, if $relay_domains
> >> includes ".example.com", it should relay mail for
> >> "sub.example.com", regardless of whether or not
Ops...
Viktor, Wietse... at no point i tried to annoy of bother anybody but obviously
i did so i ask for apologizes...
Thanks again for your help and time! i *** hell up, Wietse..
David.
On Tue, 3/29/16, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Subject: Re: Cas
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55:31AM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > If it's not a bug, additional explanation in the documentation as
> > to its behavior would be useful.
>
> I agree. I had the same question some years ago, until it was
> explained to me.
>
> The only documentation I know of is
>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 04:38:16PM +, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Viktor, Wietse... at no point i tried to annoy of bother anybody but
> obviously i did so i ask for apologizes...
>
> Thanks again for your help and time! i *** hell up, Wietse..
That was the lesser of the two alternatives.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> There are a few features for which the semantics of p_d_m_s are
> explained in more detail, for example:
> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
> http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
OK, thanks. It'd be useful, I think, to link the e
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
>> There are a few features for which the semantics of p_d_m_s are
>> explained in more detail, for example:
>
>> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
>> http://www.postfix.org/tr
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:53:48AM -0700, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016, at 08:29 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > (However, in this thread you do seem to be focusing on spam from the
> > quasi-legitimate marketers who might be in compliance with the USA
> > "[You-]CAN-SPAM" law,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016, at 09:54 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > and my goal is to block that & all OTHER mta hosts that have their
> > NS on *.synapp.io or just synapp.io (just in case)
>
> Hehe, this brings to mind an old spam war story. Sorry, but this
> might be of interest to this thread.
I've (
Michael Fischer:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > There are a few features for which the semantics of p_d_m_s are
> > explained in more detail, for example:
>
> > http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
> > http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
>
> OK, thanks. I
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Fischer:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > There are a few features for which the semantics of p_d_m_s are
> > > explained in more detail, for example:
> >
> > > http://www.postfix.org/access.5.h
Is it possible to tell postfix to log the from and to for a message after it
has been accepted for delivery?
I get a log line that has the from and to in it For NOQUEUE messages, but I’d
like the same sort of log line for messages that are being delivered.
Yes, I know the information is there i
@lbutlr:
> Is it possible to tell postfix to log the from and to for a message =
> after it has been accepted for delivery?
Viktor occasionally posts a script that will allow you to
combine all logging related to one queue ID.
I may be able to dig that up later,
Wietse
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 07:01:56PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
> Is it possible to tell postfix to log the from and to for a
> message after it has been accepted for delivery?
>
> I get a log line that has the from and to in it For NOQUEUE
> messages, but I’d like the same sort of log line for messages
On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:42 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 07:01:56PM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Is it possible to tell postfix to log the from and to for a
>> message after it has been accepted for delivery?
>>
>> I get a log line that has the from and to in it For NOQUEUE
>> messages
On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor occasionally posts a script that will allow you to
> combine all logging related to one queue ID.
I basically want the opposite of that. I want to be able to grep out a single
line for each message that shows all the relevant (to me) in
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:45 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> Viktor occasionally posts a script that will allow you to
>> combine all logging related to one queue ID.
>
> I basically want the opposite of that. I want to be able to grep out a single
> line for each message that shows all the relevant (
26 matches
Mail list logo
