* Viktor Dukhovni:
> I strongly do not recommend using LDAP for per-user transport lookups.
Shame that it does not scale, because it works. I have tried using a
combination of LDAP-based virtual_alias_maps and hashed transport_maps
as per your suggestion, but have not yet quite achieve the result
A Postfix process won't look up transport_maps if the same query
repeats, but when I look at the code, there is a 30-second time
limit on the reusing the cached response. Is that not sufficient?
Wietse
* Wietse Venema:
> A Postfix process won't look up transport_maps if the same query
> repeats, but when I look at the code, there is a 30-second time
> limit on the reusing the cached response. Is that not sufficient?
Maybe it would help if I described the scenario in more detail. Consider
an LDA
Wietse Venema:
> A Postfix process won't look up transport_maps if the same query
> repeats, but when I look at the code, there is a 30-second time
> limit on the reusing the cached response. Is that not sufficient?
Sorry, that is the resolve client cache, not the transport_map
cache. But the res
Ralph Seichter:
> In order to keep the window for temporary message rejection as small as
> possible, the LDAP attribute is set immediately before maintenance
> starts, and is removed immediately after maintenance ends. Any caching
> interferes when incoming traffic volume is high, even 30 seconds
Wietse Venema:
> Ralph Seichter:
> > In order to keep the window for temporary message rejection as small as
> > possible, the LDAP attribute is set immediately before maintenance
> > starts, and is removed immediately after maintenance ends. Any caching
> > interferes when incoming traffic volume
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 02:00:11PM +0100, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> > I strongly do not recommend using LDAP for per-user transport lookups.
>
> Shame that it does not scale, because it works. I have tried using a
> combination of LDAP-based virtual_alias_maps and hashed transport_maps
> as per you
Hello everyone,
I run telnet from outside my network to a server and I receive the
following message
# telnet server7 25
Trying 200.x.x.x...
Connected to server07.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connection closed by foreign host.
In the postfix logs i see this:
Feb 18 13:03:31 server07 postfix/smtpd
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:56:24AM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Let me modify the pseudocode to describe my goal in more detail:
> >
> > x = ldap_lookup_recipient_record(envelope_to_address)
> > if x.has_attribute(alpha)
> > reject_with_code_4xx(message=value_of_attribute(alpha))
>
>
>
> Feb 18 13:03:31 server07 postfix/smtpd[11585]: warning: SASL
> authentication failure: Internal Error -4 in server.c near line 1757
>
Do you have cyrus sasl installed?
>
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Bottom line, use the transport(5) table for routing, and access(5) for
> access control.
These are queried at different points in time. Is this race-condition
safe, i.e. can LDAP reponses change while an email message is in
flight inside Postfix?
Wietse
ello
we are a corporate email service provider only transactional / business emails.
Once in a while under rare occasions due to customer's email id getting
compromised our server's primary ip gets blacklisted in spam databases.
So the question is
Can we change the outgoing mails' ip address i
Rajesh M:
> ello
>
> we are a corporate email service provider only transactional / business
> emails.
>
> Once in a while under rare occasions due to customer's email id getting
> compromised our server's primary ip gets blacklisted in spam databases.
>
> So the question is
>
> Can we change
* Wietse Venema:
> Actually, drain caches and queues BEFORE updating LDAP, so that
> LDAP is not changing while Postfix is still processing email.
The maintenance service and Postfix only intersect in LDAP, and moving
an account between servers can happen at any time. That's why I can only
rely o
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:53:56AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > Bottom line, use the transport(5) table for routing, and access(5) for
> > access control.
>
> These are queried at different points in time. Is this race-condition
> safe, i.e. can LDAP reponses change while an
Hi everyone,
We're running multi-instance postfix 3.1.15 and we want to rewrite message
headers via LDAP tables using smtp generic (so that it happens after transport
selection).
Our transport table has:
domain1.invalid affiliate:[external1.invalid]
And master.cf has:
affiliate
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:02:26PM +, Matthew Selsky wrote:
> Our transport table has:
> domain1.invalid affiliate:[external1.invalid]
>
> And master.cf has:
> affiliate unix - - n - - smtp
> -o smtp_generic_maps=${ldap}generic-ldap.cf
>
> smt
17 matches
Mail list logo
