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
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
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
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
hai
can i define multiple lookup tables in header_checks?.ie:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header.regexp,
pcre:/etc/postfix/header.pcre
thanks
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
