I apologize in advance if I'm being horribly dense, but I'm seeing
something that doesn't feel right. In the event that a transport map
lookup fails with a "host not found" error, Postfix is bouncing the
message rather than treating it as a temporary error.
For my test, I have the transport map:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:47:58PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> I apologize in advance if I'm being horribly dense, but I'm seeing
>> something that doesn't feel right. In the event that a transport map
>> lookup fails wi
Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> So, my question is, why is that fatal instead of temporary? Shouldn't it
>> be temporary? Observed on 2.5.5 and 2.4.5.
>
> It should not be temporary. All lookups succeed and establish that the
> destination is non-existent. Postfix correctly bounces the message.
>
> If
Does anyone know offhand where the logging string "delays=a/b/c/d" is
defined in the documentation? I can't seem to find it.
~Seth
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Does anyone know offhand where the logging string "delays=a/b/c/d" is
> defined in the documentation? I can't seem to find it.
>
Nevermind, it's in RELEASE_NOTES. I would humbly suggest putting it in
the DEBUG_README as well.
~Seth
Pascal Volk wrote:
> On 01/06/2010 05:29 PM Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Does anyone know offhand where the logging string "delays=a/b/c/d" is
>> defined in the documentation? I can't seem to find it.
>
> see man postconf(5):
> man 5 postconf | less +/^delay_
On 2/2/10 10:05 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/2/2010 11:11 AM, Michele Carandente wrote:
>> Hi Noel,
>> Thanks for the corrections... anyway this solution doen't solve the
>> problem that I have.
>
> Sorry, that's the only solution I have to offer.
>
UUCP? ;)
~Seth
On 6/12/2010 16:03, Denis BUCHER wrote:
>
> c) More info :
> That's what I see in the logs approximately at the same time these
> errors are seen :
>
> Jun 11 04:45:21 cirrus postfix/trivial-rewrite[3636]: warning:
> dict_ldap_connect: Unable to bind to server ldap://localhost:389 as
> cn=, o
On 9/10/2010 00:32, Nick Edwards wrote:
> Good day all,
> I apologize in advance if the moderators consider this slightly OT.
>
> We have many users moved to a MySQL database, planned for moving away
> from Cyrus on Sunday Oct 3, we are almost ready to go but found a
> problem with pop3 software w
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:00, Noel Jones wrote:
>> Did you run "postfix reload"?
>
> yes
>
>> Do you have postfix 2.3 or later?
>
> 2.5.7
>
>> Show evidence. "postconf -n" output, contents of your
>> message, etc.
>
> do i really have to :/
>
If you ask for help and c
Ryan O'Toole wrote:
>
> However, when I send an email to one of those addresses it never arrives
> to my gmail, though I can see that postfix received and forwarded it.
>
> mail.log:
> Jul 23 18:46:05 izardry postfix/smtp[2039]: 6BF6C3F800AD:
> to=mailto:roto...@gmail.com>>,
> orig_to=mailto:i...
Ryan O'Toole wrote:
> Sure, sure. I realize Google is Google and Postfix is Postfix.
>
> My purpose in mailing to this list is questioning whether there are
> additional steps I need to take when configuring my postfix server so
> that my mail won't be blacklisted.
>
> I'm reading a little on rev
Martijn de Munnik wrote:
>
> Losing catchall seems to be the best solution but some of my customers
> want to create an emailaddress for every website the register on.
>
> m...@desjors.nl
> pay...@desjors.nl
> deb...@desjors.nl
>
> etc.
>
> Then they use their mail client to filter the messages a
Carl A jeptha wrote:
> When setting up Postfix with Amavis, ClamAV and spamassassin, should one
> see spamassassin working (I am using a Ubuntu server)
>
True?
~Seth
Roman Gelfand wrote:
> It looks like somebody is trying to figure out my internal users as
> evidenced by log excerpts below. Is there something I could do to, if
> not prevent this, reduce it?
>
You could use fail2ban to look for too many "RCPT from unknown" entries
and block the IP address.
Roman Gelfand wrote:
> Should I block 1 address or subnet?
>
I'd start with just the IP, personally.
~Seth
I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
message_size_limit set to 104857600. Is there something else going into
the size calculation that I'm missing?
~Seth
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Seth Mattinen:
>>> I'm seeing "Error: message file too big" but I'm not sure what's causing
>>> it. The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284, but I have
>>> message_size_limit set
LuKreme wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> The exact byte count of the message+headers is 100793284
>
> Seriously? 96MB emails? I hope that's internal only.
>
Nope, not internal. Why does that matter?
I only noticed this one because the idi
Dave wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm running postfix 2.3 via rpm package. This is on a centos box. I
> know that there are later versions out, and am wondering if there's a
> feature add-ons page, not just a changelog, something very detailed version
> to version, that goes in to detail? I'm trying to
mouss wrote:
> Leonardo Rodrigues a écrit :
>>
>> http://wiki.dovecot.org/Plugins/Zlib
>>
>
> I don't wanna sound negative, but
> - since dovecot solves the problem...
> - this can also be handled at fielsystem level
> - every time I hear "zlib", someting like "vulnerability" hits my ears.
> so if
Multiline responses in SMTP are (as far as I know) not allowed. I'm sure
Wietse will correct me it I'm wrong, but I can't ever recall it.
~Seth
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Seth Mattinen:
>> Multiline responses in SMTP are (as far as I know) not allowed. I'm sure
>> Wietse will correct me it I'm wrong, but I can't ever recall it.
>
> They are allowed. In fact, most EHLO server responses are multi-line.
>
Ricky Tompu Breaky wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:15:52 +0300
> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>> Ricky Tompu Breaky kirjoitti:
>>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:51 +0300
>>> Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
Well, default config on suse? is really messy, maybe you can take
basic config from
Keith Palmer wrote:
> OK, thanks... but that doesn't answer my question.
>
>>> Is it possible to configure Postfix for SMTP-AUTH *without* using
>>> SASL/PAM?
>
> I'd like to *not run SASL at all* rather than have it do the lookups.
>
Use the dovecot auth method. In spite of the name in the doc
Rene Bartsch wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:10:27AM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
>>
>> It looks like a "heap" to me. Some library is allocating a lot of virtual
>> memory. It could be via Postfix, or via an NSS module, perhaps "db"
>> entries in nsswitch.conf, just to close out the Berke
Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Seth Mattinen :
>> Keith Palmer wrote:
>>> OK, thanks... but that doesn't answer my question.
>>>
>>>>> Is it possible to configure Postfix for SMTP-AUTH *without* using
>>>>> SASL/PAM?
>>&g
Eric B. wrote:
>
> Is there no way to direct Postfix to a different DNS server (as opposed to
> the ones specified in resolve.conf) either for a particular domain, or for
> all domains altogether?
>
No, that's outside of the purview of Postfix. You could probably do
something with BIND views t
devel anaconda wrote:
>
> It disables fsync() on each incoming mail. Plus, if I mount my ext3 partition
> with option commit=30 or even commit=100, can it helps a bit?
>
Have you tried a filesystem other than ext3 like Reiser or XFS? The
performance of ext3 really, really sucks if you have a l
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 01:18:35AM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> Have you tried a filesystem other than ext3 like Reiser or XFS? The
>> performance of ext3 really, really sucks if you have a lot of files in
>> one directory as a mail spool is
David Koski wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> BTW, don't you really mean?
>>
>> # apt-get purge exim
>> # apt-get install postfix
>
> Last I tried I couldn't remove the MTA without replacement. The
> onliner "apt-get --purge install postfix" installs postfix and purge
Jerry wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:33:51 -0500
> Michael Katz replied:
>
>> Responding to support lists is not a sales strategy, and if it was it
>> would be the worst strategy imaginable because it doesn't work. We
>> sell software because we have to make a living but answering on lists
>>
Thomas Bolioli wrote:
http://forum.qmailrocks.org/archive/index.php/t-1623.html
I found the above link when looking for a how to for configuring postfix
to bounce email BEFORE the initial MTA transaction is complete. I can't
seem to find one for postfix. I want a sending MTAs to get a 550 erro
33 matches
Mail list logo
