Re: 2.7 RPM

2010-02-23 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
If someone can help me with a doc on creating a ".src.rpm" package I would like to try it Thanks Ram actually,when you're follow workaround on my site you got both binary and source. usually located at %_topdir/SRPMS/ spec files always produces both binary and source when rebuild with

Re: "Display-name" rewriting

2010-02-25 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Sylvain Ferrand wrote: Hello, I would like to overwrite the "display-name" (i.e. the sender description string in the the From: field. - cf. RFC 5322 sec 3.4) set by the MUA. Is it possible to rewrite the "display-name" (1) in the "From:" header on a postfix server ? Thanks in advance, Syl

Re: outbound sender

2010-03-05 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
That's precisely what I don't want to do. 1. all mail from inside goes to this (edge - 1 ) postfix box. 2. if from trusted/don't-scan-it listsen...@domain.tld, then don't go to edge/out-MX relayhost, resolve/send directly to Internet. 3. if not from listsen...@domain.tld, then send to relayh

Re: Postfix 2.8 and 2.7 updates ready for testing

2010-06-03 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 6/2/2010 7:30 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: I just uploaded new versions of Postfix 2.8-20100601 "experimental" i think you have typo in your download site wieste, it said postfix-2.8-20100603.tar.gz , which is not found. thanks PT.CITRA SARI MAKMUR SATELLITE & TERRESTRIAL NETWORK Conne

multiple tables in header_checks

2010-12-22 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
hai can i define multiple lookup tables in header_checks?.ie: header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header.regexp, pcre:/etc/postfix/header.pcre thanks

Re: multiple tables in header_checks

2010-12-22 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 12/22/2010 7:25 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: On 12/22/10 1:10 PM, Hari Hendaryanto wrote: hai can i define multiple lookup tables in header_checks?.ie: header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header.regexp, pcre:/etc/postfix/header.pcre thanks As documented: header_checks (default: empty

psc_cache_update

2011-01-16 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
hi, i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning: psc_cache_update: /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db update took 103 ms is this ok? how much time needed for psc_cache_update, idealy? this is my potsconf -n, postscreen rel

Re: psc_cache_update

2011-01-16 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 1/17/2011 12:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:50:16AM +0700, Hari Hendaryanto wrote: i'm runing postfix-2.9-20110116, i've seen this warning Jan 17 11:38:37 mx1 postfix/postscreen[17083]: warning: psc_cache_update: /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db u

Re: psc_cache_update

2011-01-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 1/17/2011 9:05 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: If this happens often, this means that postscreen cannot handle more than 10 SMTP connections per second, or that your system clock is jumping (as in: running inside a VM). i'm running postfix on native linux OS (bare-metal) I see the warning once a d

Re: psc_cache_update

2011-01-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Hari Hendaryanto: yes, i think the disk I/O was to busy to handle postfix and view http services. is the "delayed" psc_cache_update doing any harm?if not, i can live with that (or at least i should figure out how to tune the disk I/O latency) If this happens often then it will impa

Re: psc_cache_update

2011-01-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 1/18/2011 8:37 AM, Hari Hendaryanto wrote: Hari Hendaryanto: If this happens often then it will impact Postfix performance, but only if your server handles many connections (with 100 ms to access the database, postscreen can handle up to 10 connections per second). i reduced

Re: psc_cache_update

2011-01-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 1/18/2011 10:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: alpha smoothing should do the trick, in this case we can start with t_0 = 0, and set t_{n+1} = 0.95*t_{n} + 0.05*delta There are many ways to arrive at a moving average. Where do these magic numbers come from? Wietse h

Postfix ipv6 rbl

2009-08-12 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Hi, Does reject_rbl_client handle ipv6 address? in ipv4, lookup would be like this: example ip 1.2.3.4 $dig a 4.3.2.1.dnsbl.domain.tld +short 127.0.0.10 $dig txt 4.3.2.1.dnsbl.domain.tld +short "http://www.domain.tld/query/bl?ip=1.2.3.4"; if yes, how does reject_rbl_client handle it? what k

Re: Postfix ipv6 rbl

2009-08-13 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Wietse Venema wrote: Hari Hendaryanto: Hi, Does reject_rbl_client handle ipv6 address? In Postfix 2.6 and later. Wietse thank you PT.CITRA SARI MAKMUR SATELLITE & TERRESTRIAL NETWORK Connecting the distance - anytime, anywhere, any content http://www.csmcom.com

smtpd_command_filter

2009-12-21 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
hi, i'm using postfix 2.5 i've been flooded with "Illegal address syntax from" from my customers which are using crap email client. Log shows: Dec 21 15:48:40 lb1 postfix/smtpd[68202]: warning: Illegal address syntax from 202-127-103-114.triplegate.net.id[202.127.103.114]:3608] in RCPT comm

Re: smtpd_command_filter

2009-12-21 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Victor Duchovni wrote: Upgrading is your only choice. The feature is new with Postfix 2.7, so you need snapshot 20091209. it work like a charms :) Dec 22 07:30:32 lb1 postfix/smtpd[83026]: flame.kutukupret.com[202.127.97.30]:3457] replacing client command "RCPT TO:<'u...@csmcom.com'>" wi

patch proposal

2011-08-01 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
Hello, I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers. Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of tcp_table. Map names have the form usock:/path/to/socket If i'm not on the right pat

Re: patch proposal

2011-08-01 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 8/2/2011 2:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: Hari Hendaryanto: Hello, I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers. Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of tcp_table. Map names

Re: patch proposal

2011-08-03 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 8/2/2011 2:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: Hari Hendaryanto: Hello, I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers. Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of tcp_table. Map names

Re: patch proposal

2011-08-03 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 8/3/2011 9:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: I have another scenario tcp:host:port tcp:/path/name Sorry, tcp:/path/name is bad user interface design. Everywhere else in Postfix, one has to specify the socket TYPE before the socket NAME (with BC compatibility for programs such as the SMTP client or

Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20111113 warning

2011-11-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
hai, i used to have this configuration in my postfix master.cf 127.0.0.1:12345 inet n n n - 0 spawn user=nobody argv=/etc/postfix/blah.py main.cf 127.0.0.1:12345_time_limit = 3600s postfix never complaint about this configuration when i reload it. using

Re: Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20111113 warning

2011-11-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 11/17/2011 6:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Stan Hoeppner: http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html 1 /etc/postfix/master.cf: 2 127.0.0.1:9998 inet n n n - 0 spawn 3 user=nobody argv=/some/where/policy-server 4 5 /etc/postfix/main.cf: 6

Re: Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20111113 warning

2011-11-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 11/17/2011 7:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Hari Hendaryanto: On 11/17/2011 6:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Stan Hoeppner: http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html 1 /etc/postfix/master.cf: 2 127.0.0.1:9998 inet n n n - 0 spawn 3 user

Re: Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20111113 warning

2011-11-17 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 11/17/2011 8:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Wietse Venema: Wietse Venema: Wietse Venema: Note #11. Does this mean this is still valid, or that the docs need changing? #11 is valid ONLY IF #2 exists. Without #2 it is a non-existent parameter. Wietse yes sir, #2 does exist in my cas

OT: postfix configuration comments

2012-08-23 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
hi guys, it's not really a problem, just my curiosity. I wonder why Postfix does not support comments such as "// comments or /* comments */ in" configuration file. is there any specific reason why those features not allowed/exist? thanks PT.CITRA SARI MAKMUR SATELLITE & TERRESTRIAL NETW

Re: OT: postfix configuration comments

2012-08-24 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 8/24/2012 3:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 24.08.2012 05:57, schrieb Hari Hendaryanto: it's not really a problem, just my curiosity. I wonder why Postfix does not support comments such as "// comments or /* comments */ in" configuration file. is there any specific r

Re: OT: postfix configuration comments

2012-08-26 Thread Hari Hendaryanto
On 8/24/2012 4:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 24.08.2012 11:09, schrieb Hari Hendaryanto: On 8/24/2012 3:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 24.08.2012 05:57, schrieb Hari Hendaryanto: it's not really a problem, just my curiosity. I wonder why Postfix does not support comments su