Hello,
I
wanted to allow certain clients to relay by using a check_client_access
lookup map. It works nice if I use IP addresses. If I use domain names,
it stops working for my test environment. My test client doesn't have
rDNS set up (I think this is the cause of "connect from
unknown[x.x.x.
Thank you to Wietse and Viktor for the replies. Appreciate explanations very
much.
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:42 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 07:34:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>
>> > I wanted to allow certain clients to relay by using a
> check_c
Hello,
My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up for themselves. However, I recently tested a
connection (using telnet on the client side, connecting to port 25) from a
server that does have rDNS in place, but I
> On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:57 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> > E.B. wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
>>
>> connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
>>
>> Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up f
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
>>>
>>> connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
>>>
>>> Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up for themselves.
>>
>> For Postfix to include the rDNS in the log and Received: header, the PTR
>> name must then resolve back
>> Thanks. So my understanding is correct that Postfix gets the hostnames you
> see in the logs from PTR records?
>
> Yes.
>
>> You are saying that additionally, if the A record for the domain
> doesn't match the client IP, the PTR will be ignored and thus you'll
> still get "unknown"?
>
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:18:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> > I read somewhere on this list that it's not necessary to use
> proxymap
>> > for transport table lookups.
>>
>> It is undesirable with the current a
Hi,
Dovecot has a new feature that can set a flag in the userdb "quota_over_flag"
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Quota/Configuration#Overquota-flag_.28v2.2.16.2B-.29
I want to use this to reject messages during SMTP conversation for users that
are over quota. I keep this flag in MySQL. I could very ea
People with selinux knowledge I very really appreciate your advice!!.
Trying to restart postfix installed from yum in Centos 7. Restart fails, I get:
type=AVC msg=audit(1430429813.721:12167): avc: denied { unlink } for
pid=31624 comm="master" name="defer" dev="dm-0" ino=981632
scontext=syst
> > People with selinux knowledge I very really appreciate your
> > advice!!.
> >
> > Trying to restart postfix installed from yum in Centos 7. Restart
> > fails, I get:
> >
> > type=AVC msg=audit(1430429813.721:12167): avc: denied { unlink } for
> > pid=31624 comm="master" name="defer" dev="
HasStan stopped hosting/maintaining it?
On Sun, 4/26/15, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Subject: Re: Stan Hoeppner's fqrdns.pcre file?
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2015, 11:32 AM
On 04/26/2015 09:07 AM, Patrick
Laimbock wrote
> HOWEVER: Looking more closely at my latest CentOS box makes me think
> that something's wrong with your installation, since I can run
> "systemctl restart postfix" without any problems. Note:
>
> # ls -lZ /var/spool/postfix/private/defer
> srw-rw-rw-. postfix postfix system_u:object_r:postfix_pri
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
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
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
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
Hi, I need create a custom policy service and I have a questions
about efficiency/performance.
I found two perl examples that are within my skill to understand
and one is based from the example code in the Postfix
examples/smtpd-policy/greylist.pl if you don't know I think this is
http://heap.alt
> > I found two perl examples that are within my skill to understand
> > and one is based from the example code in the Postfix
> > examples/smtpd-policy/greylist.pl if you don't know I think this is
> > http://heap.altlinux.org/usr/share/doc/postfix-2.2.11/examples/smtpd-policy/greylist.pl
> > so i
> > while () {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > So executed outside of Postfix it is a one-time script.
>
>
> Nope. The above loop handles an arbitrary number of greylist queries,
> until it sees EOF on the standard input stream.
I see so its simply matter of postifx holds open
STDIN of the script that expla
Beginner question - I want to confirm that policy service running
under postfix spawn could have multiple instances running (if
there are multiple smptd processes) and so they should never
cache any important user data in local memory because they
would be out of sync with other instances of the sa
> However, all the requests from a single smtpd(8) service will go
> to the same policy service instance. So in memory caching can be
> used to construct per-transaction state (if, for example, the policy
> service fires for each recipient and also at data and/or end of
> data).
That's guaranteed
Another question about policy service run under postfix spawn---
If using a database to store policy service state, on a busy site
I understand this could mean possibly very large number of
policy servers along with each smtpd service.
if each policy service has a DB connection this could be to
> > Another question about policy service run under postfix spawn---
>
> Using spawn is not mandatory you know.
Yes, I have been considering alternate to run a external
daemon instead. According to this thread, I undersatnd if
database connections are concern, choice to use external
daemon could b
> > > You could run a small pool
> > > (1 or more) of processes each of which handles multiple concurrent
> > > smtpd connections.
> >
> > Sorry, sort of beginner programmer question, to be clear
> > what you say, concurrent connections would be handled by
> > a policy server by spawning a new thre
> > > > > You could run a small pool
> > > > > (1 or more) of processes each of which handles multiple concurrent
> > > > > smtpd connections.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, sort of beginner programmer question, to be clear
> > > > what you say, concurrent connections would be handled by
> > > > a policy s
25 matches
Mail list logo
