On Dec 29, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Sahil Tandon put forth on 12/29/2009 9:08 AM:
God himself? Is this a joke or are you working on some creepy,
endearing biography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
According to Jewish and Christian belief, God is the creator of the
ed) in
> /var/www/html/ webmail.simpedia.com/functions/imap_general.php on line
> 172, referer: http://webmail.siahou.net/src/login.php grep:
> /etc/dtpasswd: No such file or directory
[ .. ]
Your anecdotes and log excerpts do not show a Postfix problem. Port 143
is for IMAP, not SMTP.
--
Sahil Tandon
gement, accessing mailboxes, et
cetera, happen elsewhere. If you believe Postfix is malfunctioning,
please provide evidence.
Review the following document before posting your follow-up:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
--
Sahil Tandon
//article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/209050
If you have a different problem than this one, then please read the
DEBUG_README and ask your question(s) more clearly.
--
Sahil Tandon
>
> i means reduce the queue life time per outgoing connection error.
>
> For example, Postfix detect a "Connection refused" and reduce queue life
> time to 6 hours instead 5 days for this error.
That is a bad idea.
--
Sahil Tandon
t_rbl_client ips.backscatterer.org
Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug in
a policy service that returns HOLD for IPs listed on the RBL.
--
Sahil Tandon
he limit exists to protect the local mail system against a run-away
client.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 03:07:05 +0100, Amedeo Rinaldo wrote:
> Il 24/03/2011 02:46, Sahil Tandon ha scritto:
> >On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:35:06 +1300, Simon wrote:
> >
> >>.. [CUT] ..
> >
> >Have you considered warn_if_reject? If you must HOLD such mail, plug
4.0 (released earlier this month) does NOT
> recognize Postscreen entries:
[ .. ]
> Anyone had any luck getting Postscreen and Logwatch to play nice together?
Have you tried asking the creators of the log parsing software?
--
Sahil Tandon
missing something after doing this: I see
> smtpd_delay_reject = yes in main.cf.new, but not in main.cf. Did I run
> the command incorrectly?
What is main.cf.new? It is not distributed with Postfix. The parameter
setting you mention above is the default, and thus does not even need to
appear in main.cf.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 16:39:15 -0700, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> >What is main.cf.new? It is not distributed with Postfix. The
> >parameter setting you mention above is the default, and thus does not
> >even need to appear in mai
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 02:38:14 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
[ .. ]
> now you come even with "direct send from a notebook"
> jesus christ this is really ignorant!
Please, this is a technical mailing list; let's all try to minimize the
editorializing and insults.
--
Sahil Tandon
ion, is the intended
> behaviour to 'PASS NEW' that client ? Odd, i expected postscreen to
> repeat tests the next time the client connects.
In certain situations, some SMTP clients do not send QUIT; this is
logged as a HANGUP but not treated as a protocol test failure. Do not
mistake logging of HANGUP to mean test failure.
--
Sahil Tandon
o the fact the host does have rDNS:
The 'unknown' in the Received: header is not due to rDNS problems, but
more likely because the name->address mapping (still) fails.
% dig +short -x 190.221.28.39
host39.190-221-28.telmex.net.ar.
... so rDNS is OK; however:
% host host39.190-221-28.telmex.net.ar
Host host39.190-221-28.telmex.net.ar not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> I think you were a bit hasty in your reply, not carefully reading the
> information I provided.
:-)
--
Sahil Tandon
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 23:55:18 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 4/12/2011 10:58 PM:
> > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:19:03 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >> Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
> >>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> &
; Is that first "postfix/smtp" line sending a reject message to
> olepykorin.info?
Did you set $final_bad_header_destiny (in amavisd-new) to something
other than D_PASS or D_DISCARD, even though you configured Postfix to
consult your content filter after-queue?
--
Sahil Tandon
up[31524]: B244136033:
> message-id=
> Apr 17 17:16:41 arrakis postfix/qmgr[31508]: B244136033:
> from=, size=5272, nrcpt=1 (queue
> active)
Do you expect reject_unlisted_sender to act on 'reindl.har...@gmail.com'
even though 'gmail.com' is not defined as one of your domains?
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 17:39:34 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 17.04.2011 17:34, schrieb Sahil Tandon:
> > On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 17:18:04 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> why is "reject_unlisted_sender" before "permit_mynetworks" ignored?
>
nder domain is *not* in mydestination.
> but since this is a production system and since some hours i have a
> big luck that everytime i tries something no messages are sent because
> of sunday :-)
I can empathize with that. :)
--
Sahil Tandon
n other examples.
This is expected behavior until you fix the issue noted in your log.
I have specifically set iptables to accept incoming/outgoing tcp and
udp packets on eth0 port 25.
I can ping the host by manually stating the ip address or by FQDN.
Irrelevant.
--
Sahil Tandon
be possible but we can't think of any reasonable solution.
> Has anyone a suggestion how we can solve this problem?
Have you tried virtual aliases?
--
Sahil Tandon
ions (and others) are
valid when used with smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 16:40:33 +0200, fakessh wrote:
> and my problem ?
You have yet to clearly describe your problem. Please, please, please
read the following document before posting anything else on this mailing
list: http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail.
--
Sahil Tandon
thentication; do you see evidence of
this in the logs?
--
Sahil Tandon
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 19:16:42 -0700, Des Dougan wrote:
> On May 2011, at 6:58 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 18:09:48 -0700, Des Dougan wrote:
> >
> >> On a new postfix/dovecot configuration, email is generally working OK.
> >> That sa
is just a connection. Successful SASL authentication would be
logged similar to the below example, assuming you use PLAIN:
postfix/smtpd[60467]: B15C7120E5: client=example.org[XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX],
sasl_method=PLAIN, sasl_username=foobar
--
Sahil Tandon
pd.
> My gut feeling is that this is not a postfix issue
Indeed; just human error.
--
Sahil Tandon
ix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
--
Sahil Tandon
o make it go away.
Harmonize the contents; copy one to the other.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 13:16:31 -0500, CT wrote:
> I would like a simple way to drop other "internal domains" email
> that can't be delivered.
>
> something like :
> #@internal-2.example.com /dev/null
Google 'postfix + discard'.
--
Sahil Tandon
the "single IP" did not work either..
>
> May 6 17:30:03 mailhost postfix/smtpd[30135]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from host.example.com [162.198.1.2]: 554 5.7.1 :
> Relay access denied;
192.168.1.2 != 162.198.1.2. For more help, please consult the
DEBUG_README before your next post to this mailing list.
--
Sahil Tandon
kill for the problem you described at the outset of this
thread. Simply reject mail from outside that HELOs as one of your
hostnames/domains.
--
Sahil Tandon
uired, and
> there is another way to use other existing tables to authenticate the
> users in the domain?
>
> Below is my postfinger output. Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
Include the contents of /etc/postfix/controlled_envelope_senders and
logging that corresponds with the problematic rejection.
--
Sahil Tandon
iew of
the following document:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
--
Sahil Tandon
ation? If you must
obscure hostnames/IPs, please do so consistently.
--
Sahil Tandon
l/libmysqlclient.a
> /usr/local/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient.so
> /usr/local/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.18
> /usr/local/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.a
> /usr/local/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.so
> /usr/local/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.so.18
You upgraded MySQL; now rebuild Postfix to link to the new libs.
--
Sahil Tandon
& postfix reload
>
> If i understand right, this will send 4.0.0 as smtp status code and thus
> force a retry on the other end. This will suffice i suppose.
You misunderstand. As documented in error(8), when the service name is
retry, Postfix defers all recipients in the delivery request using the
next-hop information as the reason for non-delivery.
--
Sahil Tandon
d need to umount it. It would be nice to generate no
> > errors and just hold the mails in the queue until i release them again.
>
> Of course, simply use check_recipient_access:
>
> l.mess...@physik.tu-berlin.de hold
This affects all recipients of a message; the retry transport
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 23:57:18 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 05/22/2011 09:06 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 17:16:52 +0200, Leon Meßner wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Pascal Volk wrote:
> >>>On 05/22/2011
ckle this? I know that you can do header check on postfix and
> remove the line where the originating IP is removed. Is that the
> solution?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/220757
--
Sahil Tandon
in need to be migrated into MySQL, or can it live outside (and
> alongside)?
Alongside is fine.
--
Sahil Tandon
and paste them somewhere for analysis. Use the '-w' flag in
tcpdump to save the capture to a file.
--
Sahil Tandon
which you were introduced upon joining this
mailing list:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
For general information about LDAP support in Postfix:
http://www.postfix.org/LDAP_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html
--
Sahil Tandon
il server
> and I was thinking having the reject_rbl_client on the
> smtpd_sender_restrictions.
>
> If someone could clarify this to me it would be great.
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html
--
Sahil Tandon
n-standard installation locations very well, and it
> has become some sort of standard for C projects.
There are no plans for moving to the beast that is autoconf; that, IMHO,
is a good thing.
--
Sahil Tandon
oot is in any way
recorded in main.cf?
--
Sahil Tandon
> address.
Perhaps you could direct those emails to a pipe(8) transport.
http://www.postfix.org/pipe.8.html
http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps
--
Sahil Tandon
ameter to... $mydestination
> (!):
Sorry, I am not familiar with eventum; but piping certain recipients to
a script is doable in Postfix. Please follow the documentation, and
follow-up in this thread if you have a specific problem with your
configuration.
--
Sahil Tandon
l this applies to.
Appears to work in bash and zsh; not in (t)csh. I quickly tested on
FreeBSD and Darwin. Likely related to handling of null byte/char.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 19:20:52 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > Appears to work in bash and zsh; not in (t)csh. I quickly tested on
> > FreeBSD and Darwin. Likely related to handling of null byte/char.
>
> I'm away from home, so I can't quickly
?, list at rfc-ignorant
This is something the OP can do in *addition* to more practical things
(as Noel suggested) to help mail reach its recipients on a remote site.
--
Sahil Tandon
please direct them to the appropriate maintainer.
--
Sahil Tandon
users = !www, static:all
Yes, and incidentally, that is the example provided in the postconf(5)
manual.
--
Sahil Tandon
on?
Based on a cursory glance, it seems to me that a simple virtual alias
mapping is more suitable than jumping through canonical hoops.
Oh, and in your follow-up: please, show logs that relate to your problem
description.
--
Sahil Tandon
in.cf;
instead, paste the output of 'postconf -n'.
--
Sahil Tandon
t-install are still placed in the $daemon_directory; their
redundant placement in $config_directory is obsolete. Similarly,
the other files noted above were replicas of man pages which are still
installed.
--
Sahil Tandon
aps on the
gateway might solve your problem.
--
Sahil Tandon
that this could be related to
Incompat 20100610 noted in the RELEASE_NOTES for 2.8.
--
Sahil Tandon
erts/
>
> Correct location would be:
>
> /var/spool/postfix/etc/postfix/certs/
Ouch, that sucks. Hopefully the Debian folks fix it soon.
--
Sahil Tandon
gt; need to add/change to get this to work?
Show logs and the output of 'postconf -n' on the machine with a problem.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 18:38:22 -0400, john wrote:
> Does anybody know of a program... that can white list inbound email
> based upon the addresses of emails that have been sent?
http://mailfud.org/postpals/
--
Sahil Tandon
s somewhat of a FAQ:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/183665
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/123550
You may search the list archives for other examples, but the underlying
notion is that multiple deliveries require multiple recipients.
--
Sahil Tandon
hange the SMTP banner for just the vhost dedicated IP
> 74.63.3.132 to 220 www.alwaysbuywholesale.com ESMTP Postfix and
> still keep the correct banner of 220 vps.velvetpixel.net ESMTP Postfix
> for 74.63.2.190?
Set an alternative smtpd_banner for the smtpd(8) listener on
74.63.3.132.
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 12:34:41 -0700, Cameron Smith wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 10:29:20 -0700, Cameron Smith wrote:
> >
> >> telnet 74.63.3.132 smtp
> >> Trying 74.63.3.132...
> >> Con
e
mailing list archive for similar discussions.
> If it could indexed for easier searching that would be great!
This has to happen outside of Postfix.
--
Sahil Tandon
matic
machine and troubleshoot further.
[1]
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.8.2003071512/postfix-current-2.9.20111012,4.log
[2] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-November/071419.html
--
Sahil Tandon
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 20:41:08 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > This error was reported to me by a FreeBSD user, but I cannot reproduce
> > it on any of my development machines. It occurs during build (sorry for
> > line wraps):
> >
> > rm -f .
postfix/smtpd[15778]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[193.83.162.5]: 450 4.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find
> your reverse hostname, [193.83.162.5]
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#unknown_client_reje
master.cf is not found. This is new to me, and could very
well be idiosyncratic to my installation procedure. But before I
troubleshoot further on my end, I wonder if anyone else can generally
reproduce this?
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 18:08:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > When trying to install snapshot 2018, I get a fatal postconf error
> > if master.cf does not exist in the $config_directory. There is no
> > problem if main.cf is missing from $config_directo
ostfix/2009-01/0483.html
--
Sahil Tandon
gt; I've been using the clamav-milter along with the Sanesecurity add-on
> spam signatures to reject quite a bit of the freemail garbage.
+1, FWIW.
--
Sahil Tandon
e.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/168112
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/140543
--
Sahil Tandon
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 10:42:30 +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> * Sahil Tandon [2011-12-05 03:24]:
> > > I'm using Postfix with MySQL via proxy:mysql maps. The documentation
> > > states that mails should get deferred if no mysql server is reachable.
> > &
: the OP's question is explicitly about how Postfix
functions when MySQL *is* down. The answer to that question - as noted
earlier - depends on which facet of Postfix is impacted, which in turn
depends on the parameters/tables configured to query an SQL backend.
--
Sahil Tandon
everse hostname; following that, the client foolishly sends
DATA, to which Postfix responds with a 554. Finally, instead of
gracefully QUITing, the client drops the connection.
--
Sahil Tandon
lay=9.5, delays=0.56/8.8/0/0.1, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok:
queued as 41BCD1065676)
Dec 14 03:00:14 mx0 postfix/smtp[53020]: B60FD8FC14:
to=, relay=internal.example.org[ip_address]:25,
delay=9.9, delays=1.1/8.6/0/0.07, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok:
queued as 5325E1065677)
...
--
Sahil Tandon
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 07:09:15 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > These warnings appear a few times daily, and are sometimes followed by:
> >
> > warning: disabling connection caching
> >
> > This occurs on a slightly older Postfix (2.7.1). The m
er bug in FreeBSD file descriptor passing code.
OK, thanks for the context.
--
Sahil Tandon
e this thread has veered off into a general discussion about mail
operation/policy, would you consider taking it off-list or to a more
appropriate forum, e.g. the mailop list?
--
Sahil Tandon
gt; unverified_sender_reject_code = 550
> unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
>
> the relevant smtpd_recipient_restrictions options I using for this are
> ...
Show the output of 'postconf -n' instead of cut & pasting from your
main.cf.
--
Sahil Tandon
a not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
This is treated as a temporary error condition, so Postfix applies
reject_tempfail_action, which defaults to defer_if_permit.
> ...
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 23:09:24 -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-25 at 13:37:52 +1000, Nick Edwards wrote:
>
> In the absence of full information, here's a WAG:
>
> > ...
> > : NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[41.203.141.1]: 450 4.7.1 Client host
&
Yes, as I already indicated in my second response to your query. And
your "sticky beaks" comment laughably strains credulity; no one cares
about the ins and outs of your configuration. Before asking for help
again, make sure to review the DEBUG_README (a document to which you
were ref
ults, and asked to append the
ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary.
[1] This is in ports/UPDATING, a file users consult before upgrading any
port. I elected to go this route to force users to pay attention to
this particular change.
--
Sahil Tandon
--- conf/post-install.orig 201
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 10:08:05 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not
> > add "inet_protocols=ipv4" to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are
> > notified[1] about the recent c
t of this thread, your
accusing of *me* for lacking respect towards *you* is disappointingly
ironic.
I do not believe Mark should have to jump through extra hoops, or that
you should revert the change. This is a FreeBSD port-specific problem
created by me that I will address as soon as I can.
--
Sahil Tandon
pgpAExDgZOayr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 19:48:48 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Sahil Tandon:
> > I do not believe Mark should have to jump through extra hoops, or that
> > you should revert the change. This is a FreeBSD port-specific problem
> > created by me that I will address as soon as I
the thread, thus preserving Wietse's safety net for incompatible
changes in IPv6 defaults.
PS: if anyone on this list is a FreeBSD user with interest in the
maintenance of the Postfix ports, please get in touch off-list.
--
Sahil Tandon
ff
debugging, and the phrase:
IMPORTANT: Be sure to get the quotes right. These details matter a lot.
> ...
> I tried with both DEBUG= and DEBUG='', but with the same above
> outcome. Are there any other parameters to pass to disable debug?
> ...
DEBUG=
--
Sahil Tandon
"liblber-2.4-releng.so.2 ... libldap-2.4-releng.so.2"
> or
> "libldap.so... libldap.so"
> which are in /usr/local/openldap/lib64 and belong to LTB v2.4.x
> ...
/usr/local/openldap/lib != /usr/local/openldap/lib64
--
Sahil Tandon
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 02:08:15 +0200, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 15/3/2012 1:54 πμ, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>
> >/usr/local/openldap/lib != /usr/local/openldap/lib64
>
> I know; I am wondering whether this is the problem.
> ...
> My first try used precisely "/usr/lo
,
> because cleanup decides that me+xmpp and me+sms is the same user, and
> leaves only one copy of the message.
Do you have logs of this occurring?
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 16:00:26 +0200, Pavel Gulchouck wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 09:19:15AM -0400, Sahil Tandon writes:
> > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 13:48:17 +0200, Pavel Gulchouck wrote:
>
> >> I use recipient_delimiter feature and procmail processing local
> >&
..
Rather than the local aliases(5) database, use virtual aliasing to
explicitly split 'gul-test' into two distinct recipients 'gul+1' and
'gul+2'. Then, procmail should receive both copies of the message.
--
Sahil Tandon
Most people should not have to
fiddle with this parameter.
--
Sahil Tandon
torials to help gain the
> "big picture" overview of what you need.
> ...
e.g. http://rob0.nodns4.us/howto/
--
Sahil Tandon
t; smtpd_reject_footer features would work as before.
Elegant. +1 FWIW.
--
Sahil Tandon
3783/16010 reject (550)
35/220 reject (all server ports busy)
3/374 reject (too many connections)
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/224979
[2] http://people.freebsd.org/~sahil/scripts/mailstats.py.txt
--
Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 11:24:26 -0400, Julien Vehent wrote:
> On 2012-04-01 1:11, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >Before enabling DNSBL blocklists on one site, I was tasked with
> >gathering some postscreen(8) statistics. I liked the information
> >display in a previous thread[1], bu
601 - 700 of 851 matches
Mail list logo
