safeport.us address gets:
554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied
virtual: d...@safeport.net doug
virtual.regexp: /^(.*)@safeport\.us$/ $1...@safeport.net
MX record for safeport.us = 10 lighthouse.safeport.com
postmap -q d...@safeport.us regexp:virtual.regexp
d...@safeport.net
Thanks for any
irtual,
or to an address whose domain is translated by virtual.regexp to an address in
virtual. Messages are delivered to a cyrus mailbox (e.g. doug) or forwarded on
to an external address.
While I would love to know what happened, I thank you for a solution
Doug
___
postconf -n
all
I have a perl program that functions as 'sendmail -bt'. It works in the
limited configuration shown below.
Implementation is by calls to postconf to get the file names and then repeated
calls to post map. My system uses:
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/virtual
r
find any similar configurations after a lot of
searching) and I wasn't sure what to include.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Doug
parently my situation is somewhat
unusual (I wasn't able to find any similar configurations after a lot of
searching) and I wasn't sure what to include.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Doug
s shutting me
down? If there is a problem I'm happy to fix it. :)
Doug
, Mar 16, 2017 at
02:06:37AM +, Doug wrote:
> [ Trying this again as I think I sent to
the wrong address the first time ]
FWIW, it got through both times.
I saw that, but thank you for confirming.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at
02:01:07AM +0000, Doug wrote:
> I'm on Ubuntu S
: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 10:15 PM
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at
04:02:58AM +, Doug wrote:
> $ postconf -d mail_version
>
> Yes, 3.1.0, thank you.
Cool. I would expect that this likely contains backports of later
patches, but unfortun
On Thu, 3/16/17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Subject: Re: Problems with lmtp
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017, 8:08 AM
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at
08:56:20AM +, Doug wrote:
> > The important thing to understan
Yes, the simple ways are usually best. :)
My first message on this topic did CC the postmaster, but it got bounced from
the list because it had the subsc word in it. Still waiting on a response.
Doug
On Thu, 3/16/17, Wietse Venema wrote
;dkim' for your selector,
and your domain is 'uconn.edu' you would want to put the following record in
the uconn.edu zone file:
dkim._domainkey TXT ( "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; t=y;"
"p=;" )
When you're done testing you can remove t=y; from the above example.
hope this helps,
Doug
Viktor,
As you'll see from my original message, I have all of the prerequisites.
The problem persists ...
Also, FWIW, I'm not alone with this issue. Another user contacted me privately
to say that he's having the same problem.
Doug
--
AUTH from unknown" dance.
Doug
d all of what I would believe to be the obvious causes of
my problem and for any errors that explain the issue. I'm sure I'll be asked,
so here are the potentially relevant pieces of data:
http://pastebin.com/m6bc0ebe8
Doug Jaquays
MSU-KCMS Information Technology
1000 Oakland Dr.
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
> Doug Jaquays wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> We recently moved our anti-virus server to Linux, eTrust ITM and
>> SLES10sp1 with all available updates without going to sp2. W
p
> [210.133.173.203])by $my_mail_server (Postfix) with SMTP id
These lines show the originating server, which I'm guessing you are not
associated with at all.
> 935711FA4B51 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:58:58
> -0500 (EST)
-Doug
This email may contain confidential and privileged
environment without issue. I did just turn off AppArmor on the server with
this problem, so we'll see what happens.
>
> or <http://tomayko.com/writings/that-dilbert-cartoon>
I'm guessing this won't help :)
-Doug
This email may contain confidential and p
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:17AM -0500, Doug Jaquays wrote:
>
>> > - The "pickup" fifo has been deleted from /var/spool/postfix/public
>> >
>> >Make sure $queue_d
current mail script
over to using Pear than to spend who knows how much longer troubleshooting this
issue.
-Doug
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Wietse Venema
>>> wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:02:47AM -0500, Doug Jaq
Messages containing leading whitespace in the recipient address are
rejected.
Example:
Jan 22 08:32:41 vps10 postfix/smtpd[5937]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtpout.eastlink.ca[24.222.0.30]: 550 5.1.1 < soli...@example.com>:
Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table;
fr
On 22-Jan-2010 10:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Robbins:
Messages containing leading whitespace in the recipient address are
rejected.
Only if the recipient does not exist.
Example:
Jan 22 08:32:41 vps10 postfix/smtpd[5937]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtpout.eastlink.ca[24.222.0.30
er has proven itself for many years in
> > smtpd(8). Problem reported by Sahil Tandon.
>
> I've been running 2.10-20120520 for the past 48 hours with no sign of
> the 'Connection refused' problem. Thanks very much for the time you
> spent implementing this workaround, Wietse.
>
Amen!
~Doug
Has anyone implemented a way of doing so? If it would help matters, I would be
happy to have any email addressed to root be skipped as well.
~Doug
> Doug Sampson skrev den 2013-02-06 05:22:
>
> > Has anyone implemented a way of doing so? If it would help matters, I
> > would be happy to have any email addressed to root be skipped as
> > well.
>
> one way could be to make a clamav sigature whitelist that on
I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally a needed
mail is blocked by one of the spam services. Is there a way to bypass
postscreen for just one or more specific addresses for a short time?
-- Doug
> On 12 July 2021, at 18:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally
>> a needed mail is blocked by one of the spam services. Is there a
>> way to bypass postscreen for just one or more specif
> On 14 July 2021, at 06:12, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>>
>>> On 12 July 2021, at 18:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug Hardie:
>>>> I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally
>>>>
I have an interesting question about logging. Postfix is working fine. I have
one domain, sermon-archive.info, as mydomain. All other domains are listed in
vmail_domains, for example:
lafn.orgOK
vmail_users contains:
bc...@lafn.org home_mail/doug/
vmail_alias
e results of
these DQS tests aren't published in the mail log. Consequently the
spamrep_today report is missing such information.
Is there a way to incorporate these maps and publish the test results in the
mail log?
~Doug
> I have followed their manual and it works.
>
> postfix/dnsblog[6907]: addr 116.255.29.67 listed by domain MY-API-
> KEY.zen.dq.spamhaus.net as 127.0.0.3
> postfix/dnsblog[6907]: addr 116.255.29.67 listed by domain MY-API-
> KEY.zen.dq.spamhaus.net as 127.0.0.4
> postfix/dnsblog[6909]: addr 11
> Doug Sampson:
> > I've opened an account with Spamhaus to use their Data Query
> > Service. I've reconfigured the main.cf to incorporate the necessary
> > adjustments.
> >
> > One thing I've noticed that when the maps (postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map
This is a postfix/cyrus/mysql system running in a FreeBSD jail. It is (as
far as I can make it) identical to a bare metal with the same
configuration. Delivery & reading email works fine, the jailed system will
not send email failing with:
cyrus postfix/smtpd[51745]: warning: SASL: Connect to
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
On 31/12/2021 10:36, Doug Denault wrote:
This is a postfix/cyrus/mysql system running in a FreeBSD jail. It is
(as far as I can make it) identical to a bare metal with the same
configuration. Delivery & reading email works fine,
into incoming_smtpd_restrictions. I believe that way,
only the mail that has a valid recipient will have the dns rbls checked. Am I
understanding this correctly? Thanks,
-- Doug
> On Nov 23, 2022, at 4:49 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 23.11.22 01:58, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I originally had incoming_smtpd_restrictions set to:
>>
>> reject_unverified_recipient
>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>>
> On Nov 23, 2022, at 23:27, Phil Biggs wrote:
>
> Thursday, November 24, 2022, 5:24:12 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>
>> I am trying with the postscreen dns lookup disabled. Here is the main.cf
>> section:
>
>> # postscreen spam filtering
On Nov 24, 2022, at 07:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>
> Doug:
>
> There's implicit reject_unlisted_recipient at the end of rules when
> smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=on (default).
>
> However when
TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
(256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest
SHA256
Feb 8 23:06:29 mail postfix-submission/smtpd[10647]: 4PC7Fd2yDbz2fjQ8:
client=master[10.0.1.250], sasl_method=CRAM-MD5, sasl_username=doug
Feb 8 23:06:29 mail postsrsd[10652]: srs_forward: rewritten as
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 12:25 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>
> Dnia 8.02.2023 o godz. 23:15:37 Doug Hardie pisze:
>>
>> The message is delivered to a mailbox on the host, not sent to mailman.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anywhere in your confi
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the message is delete from the queue.
I added:
delay_warning_time = 8h
to main.cf. This made no difference so I assume an additional setting is
required, but I could not find anything.
_
Doug
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the message is delete from the queue.
I added:
delay_warning_time =
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:03:31PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
I added:
delay_warning_time = 8h
to main.cf. This made no difference so I assume an additional setting is
required, but I could not find anything.
This setting only affects *new
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the messag
ssing
something on how to do that. Thanks,
-- Doug
On 13 February 2020, at 03:28, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> I seem to have a couple corrupt messages. Restarting postfix gives:
>>
>> service postfix restart
>> postfix/postfix-script: stopping t
> On Feb 13, 2020, at 16:05, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> Thanks. I finally understand it. Interestingly enough, both of
>> the corrupt/* files had zero length.
>
> Did the files have permissions rwx? Then at some point they contained
> an email m
g the SYNs though. It almost appears to
be a really poor attempt at a denial of service. I did find 2 other sites
sending the same thing.
-- Doug
28/128 bits)
Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
1761 TLSv1
18 TLSv1.1
20414 TLSv1.2
6343 TLSv1.3
0 SSL
That's not what I expected. I thought v1 and v1.1 would be reversed. There is
a complete spectrum of ciphers being used with v1 including some of the most
recent. I am using the defaults for the protocols and ciphers.
-- Doug
>
> On 5 March 2020, at 17:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:57:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
>>
>> 1761 TLSv1
>> 18 TLSv1.1
>> 20414 TLSv1.2
>> 6343 TLSv1.3
>>
> On 5 March 2020, at 17:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:57:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
>>
>> 1761 TLSv1
>> 18 TLSv1.1
>> 20414 TLSv1.2
>> 6343 TLSv1.3
>>
y all the spammers are now using high
quality mail servers like postfix. They seem to retry forever. Greylisting
has become pretty much useless. When I disabled it a couple years ago, the
spam levers did not increase by any measurable amount. We now use just 3 RBLs
and that seems to be a relatively acceptable level of spam.
-- Doug
r users were hit by spammers with more resources ;-) I
would have kept greylisting if we had seen numbers like that.
-- Doug
h the trees as the
documentation is detailed and complete. However, once you discover the
forrest, then the documentation will be quite helpful.
-- Doug
> On 9 June 2020, at 14:26, Scott A. Wozny wrote:
>
> In the context of looking at implementing Postscreen, I’ve read through the
I am upgrading from postfix-2.8.7,1 and cyrus-imapd-2.3.18 to
postfix-3.5.6,1 and cyrus-imapd30-3.0.14. The old system uses sasldb
authentication, the new one MySQL. This is on FreeBSD.
I have compared the conf files on two addition postfix systems and can see
no differences of consequence. I
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/30/2020 2:57 PM, Doug Denault wrote:
I am upgrading from postfix-2.8.7,1 and cyrus-imapd-2.3.18 to
postfix-3.5.6,1 and cyrus-imapd30-3.0.14. The old system uses sasldb
authentication, the new one MySQL. This is on FreeBSD.
I have compared the conf
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 Aug 2020, at 20:24, Doug Denault wrote:
working system:
lighthouse:~> sockstat | egrep "postfix|master" | egrep ":[2\5]+"
postfix smtpd 98709 6 tcp4 *:25 *:*
postfix smtpd
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Noel Jones wrote:
Staring at postconf (or somewhat easier, postconf -n) output is unlikely to
fix this without clues in the log of what the problem is.
Start here:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
If you need more help from us:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG
if DMA, Dragonfly mail agent, is available for your machine. It
is a very simple send only mail server. It is easy to setup and run. Only
sends mail. Nothing else other than DNS resolution is required.
-- Doug
ral health organizations, a mail server that is normally not
sending spam, some California legislators, but I believe probably 80% are spam.
I am not ready to block those yet. If that is the best they can do, then it's
better than in the clear.
-- Doug
on how I can do this
in a relay configuration. I looked at milters and unfortunately I cannot seem
to identify one that would work in our case. PostfixAdmin seems to be overkill
for a mail relay.
Does anyone know how this can be accomplished?
~Doug
bmas...@example1.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; 192.168.xx1.33
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 User unknown
-- Forwarded message --
From: Doug Sampson
To: webmas...@example1.com
Cc:
Date: W
3
autoreply.example1.com vacation:
and delivers the first message to 192.168.xx1.33 and the second message to the
vacation script as defined in master.cf:
vacation unix - n n - - pipe
flags=Rq user=vacation argv=/var/spool/vacation/auto-reply.pl -f
${sender} -- ${recipient}
The vacation script then executes by sending an autoreply message back to the
original sender.
Is my understanding correct?
~Doug
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
Feb 20 09:25:15 freeport postfix/smtp[67456]: 7883F510EBC:
to=, relay=none, delay
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2/20/2023 9:25 AM, Doug Denault wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:20 PM, Doug Denault wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
Feb 20 09:25:15 freeport
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size
f the site cannot be reached by IPv6, won't postfix
retry with IPv4?
Doug
Setting up a new pipe in master.cf I wanted to do 'user=${user}' but
that macro isn't available there, only in argv. I found a workaround,
but I was curious about why?
Doug
On 03/25/2017 06:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Setting up a new pipe in master.cf I wanted to do 'user=${user}' but that macro
isn't available there, only in argv. I found a workaround, but I was curious
about why?
For good s
On 03/25/2017 06:43 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Postfix can be configured to try IPv6 before IPv4 (with
smtp_address_preference)
Regarding that option, I've never understood the warning in postconf(5).
Doesn't that feature provide
On 03/26/2017 12:21 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
So while a suggestion not to care about IPv6 may have been valid in
2014. It is simply wrong in 2017.
Here here! And keep in mind that mobile providers are primarily v6
nowadays, so those numbers are only going up.
Doug
On 03/26/2017 02:48 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Doug Barton skrev den 2017-03-26 22:16:
On 03/26/2017 12:21 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
So while a suggestion not to care about IPv6 may have been valid in
2014. It is simply wrong in 2017.
Here here! And keep in mind that mobile providers are
On 03/25/2017 06:55 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Setting up a new pipe in master.cf I wanted to do 'user=${user}' but that macro
isn't available there, only in argv. I found a workaround, but I was curious
about why?
Fo
On 03/29/2017 04:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Barton:
Unlike .forward or files which exist for selected users, injecting
envelope data (e.g. user=${user}) into the pipe(8) execution context
could allow remote senders to execute code as any user on the system
Yes, that's what I want
On 03/29/2017 10:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Barton:
On 03/29/2017 04:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Barton:
Unlike .forward or files which exist for selected users, injecting
envelope data (e.g. user=${user}) into the pipe(8) execution context
could allow remote senders to execute
main names 1-4 above are not in any of the other maps, or in any file in
the config directory. When I had only the following in vmail_alias:
testuser@domain5testuser@domain1
Mail to testuser@domain5 was properly forwarded to testuser@domain1. Domain5
is in the virtual_mailbox_domains file.
— Doug
> On 9 May 2017, at 22:19, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 00:48, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I have a situation that is most likely a problem with my understanding
>> of postfix and not a code problem. I am getting ready to take over a
>> domain name
infoOK
second.domain OK
mail# more vmail_alias
postmaster doug
bc979 doug
bc979-1 edward
bc979-4 jeanne
user1 mailb...@gmail.com
u
When using virtual domains, is there a way to return a temp fail message for a
specific user in a domain? I am not finding anything about that in the
documentation.
first approach should have
worked. Apparently I have formatted the options incorrectly. What did I do
wrong?
-- Doug
Thanks for the pointers on that. I spent a couple days digging around and
never found it.
On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> When using virtual domains,
>
> (That part is not relevant.)
&g
> On 6 July 2017, at 12:40, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> main.cf doesn't allow spaces in the options. The supported syntax
>> is to either use commas "," rather than spaces; enclose the option
> On 7 July 2017, at 08:44, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2017 12:37 AM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:40, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, Noel Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>&
My server is being hit pretty hard by spam from China. Every email is from a
different IP address. The only common item is the message id ends in @qq.com.
Is there any way to block those with that ID?
-- Doug
> On 7 September 2017, at 15:28, pgndev wrote:
>
> It ain't pretty, or recommended for the long term, but something like this
> should slow it down
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf
> header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
>
> /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
> IF
Thanks. I went with:
IF /^Message-id:/
/@qq\.com/ Reject
ENDIF
It's not all that pretty, but it works fine. I have been watching the logs and
those messages are now being rejected. Thanks for all the help.
-- Doug
> On 7 September 2017, at 15:50, pgndev wrote:
>
>
aaa.com and it
"needs" to be changed to elsewhere. I somehow seem to recall that there are
some MTAs that do not use the MX records, but only check the A records. Will
changing the A record for aaa.com cause the loss of some incoming mail?
-- Doug
> On 16 November 2017, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I have a domain, say: aaa.com for which I receive mail. Currently I have A
>> records in DNS for aaa.com and mail.aaa.com as we
I am needing to replace the certificate and key. Are they read and cached when
postfix starts, or are they read during normal mail handling? In other words,
can I replace the files or do I need to do a reload or restart of the service
afterwards?
-- Doug
-- Doug
> On 12 April 2018, at 16:29, Ian R. Bennett wrote:
>
> On 2018-04-12 16:25, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I am needing to replace the certificate and key. Are they read and
>> cached when postfix starts, or are they read during normal mail
>> handling? In oth
Thanks for the correction. Since the replacement is not
time critical, the old certificates will have a few days validity remaining.
One of those limits will certainly be reached by then.
-- Doug
then the normal response is for people to
reply-all. That spams a lot of people who don't want to see those, or don't
want their email address published. By using BCCs, you avoid both issues.
-- Doug
s. I believe I can limit the number of
dnsblog processes in master.cf (currently set to 0), but I am not sure that is
a good idea. How long are these processes supposed to live?
-- Doug
> On 22 April 2018, at 05:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> I understood from the dnsblog man page that each dnsblog process
>> only lives for a "limited amount of time". I noticed this because
>> I have over 50 dnsblog processes running on
> On 24 April 2018, at 13:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>>> On 22 April 2018, at 05:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug Hardie:
>>>> I understood from the dnsblog man page that each dnsblog process
>>>> only lives fo
s was
removed from virtual_alias_maps and then the unknown messages started. Postfix
was re-started after that change was made (not a reload).
-- Doug
> On 23 May 2018, at 09:24, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:39:08AM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I am running a mail server that has a few local recipients and a
>> bunch of forwarded recipients for one domain. All is working
>> properly. However,
> On 23 May 2018, at 11:43, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> It is a non-existent address and is fine. It's just surprising that one of
>> the non-existent addresses gets a different log messa
> On 23 May 2018, at 13:17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 4:10 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I would think that cache would be cleared with a restart.
>
> No. The verification cache survives restart. This is intentional.
There
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
