Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:48:17 -0400
Charles Dennett kirjoitti:
> On 4/29/25 12:54 PM, jarmo wrote:
>
> > But... As said, it was running ok, so far, when
> > came new kernel, updated, rebooted computer, postfix
> > sevice didn't start. In F41 it worked ok, when aft
On 4/29/25 12:54 PM, jarmo wrote:
But... As said, it was running ok, so far, when
came new kernel, updated, rebooted computer, postfix
sevice didn't start. In F41 it worked ok, when after kernel
update rebooted..
This F42 have something, what makes postix sevice disabled
after reboot,
> Am 29.04.2025 um 13:50 schrieb jarmo :
>
> Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:39:53 +0200
> Peter Boy Uni kirjoitti:
>
>
>> That’s a regression since F41.
>>
>> When you issue an systemctl status postfix just after reboot, you
>> should get a short infor
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:13:48 -0700
Mike Wright kirjoitti:
>
> Read what I posted to you before. It is disabled. That means it
> will NOT START automatically. You must enable it in order for it to
> be started automatically.
>
> the command "systemctl enable --now pos
On 4/29/25 08:35, jarmo wrote:
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 07:10:46 -0700
Mike Wright kirjoitti:
On 4/29/25 04:50, jarmo wrote:
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/postfix.service; disabled;
preset: disabled)
That line says it is disabled.
Try "systemctl enable --now postfix", then
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 07:10:46 -0700
Mike Wright kirjoitti:
> On 4/29/25 04:50, jarmo wrote:
> > Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/postfix.service; disabled;
> > preset: disabled)
>
> That line says it is disabled.
>
>
> Try "systemctl enable --n
On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 14:50 +0300, jarmo wrote:
> systemctl status postfix
> ○ postfix.service - Postfix Mail Transport Agent
> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/postfix.service; disabled;
> preset: disabled)
> Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/service.d
>
s with the original poster. When the
system comes up as multiuser, start up postfix. But postfix must first
wait for the network (or at least the bits of it needs) to come up.
I've had that issue with NTP. If you tried to start it before the
network (which was its default), it'd start,
On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 16:12 +0200, Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote:
> The recommended solution is to trigger service start off incoming
> connections, if possible. This is less ideal for things like Postfix
> which might need to send traffic before they receive it.
On this computer we don&#x
ng
connections, if possible. This is less ideal for things like Postfix
which might need to send traffic before they receive it.
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject
On 4/29/25 04:50, jarmo wrote:
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/postfix.service; disabled; preset:
disabled)
That line says it is disabled.
Try "systemctl enable --now postfix", then "systemctl status postfix".
See if
ervice states to enable it in
the multi-user.target: WantedBy=multi-user.target
> jarmo:
>> Is this what you mean?
>> systemctl enable postfix
>> Created symlink
>> '/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/postfix.service' →
>> '/usr/lib/systemd/syst
Barry kirjoitti:
> > Being enabled is not necessarily enough.
> > It must be enabled for the default target.
> >
> > Is it wanted by the default target?
> >
jarmo:
> Is this what you mean?
> systemctl enable postfix
> Created symlink
> &#
8:03:26 +0200
From: francis.montag...@inria.fr
Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
To: Community support for Fedora users
Hi
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:50:39 -0700 "Doug H." wrote:
Does anybody have an opinion on this?
Seeing the postfix bug introduced by that (no sendmail), I
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:39:53 +0200
Peter Boy Uni kirjoitti:
> That’s a regression since F41.
>
> When you issue an systemctl status postfix just after reboot, you
> should get a short information about the reason. I suppose it is a
> complain about network availability at th
> Am 29.04.2025 um 10:51 schrieb jarmo :
>
> Where to look, postfix service won't start
> after reboot? Have to start manually every
> time...
> And yes service is enabled. Happens every
> time, when update kernel...?
That’s a regression since F41.
When you issue an
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:09:21 +0100
Barry kirjoitti:
> Being enabled is not necessarily enough.
> It must be enabled for the default target.
>
> Is it wanted by the default target?
>
> Barry
Is this what you mean?
systemctl enable postfix
Created symlink
'/e
> On 29 Apr 2025, at 09:52, jarmo wrote:
>
> Where to look, postfix service won't start
> after reboot? Have to start manually every
> time...
> And yes service is enabled. Happens every
> time, when update kernel...?
Being enabled is not necessarily enough.
Where to look, postfix service won't start
after reboot? Have to start manually every
time...
And yes service is enabled. Happens every
time, when update kernel...?
Jarmo
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe se
On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:13:15 -0400
Alex wrote:
> That's what I was looking for, and thought it would fix it, but alas, it
> didn't.
I have done complete kludgery to solve problems like this by disabling
the service that won't start at boot, then adding rc.local entries
to use "at" to start the se
> > I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem has
> > existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe the server
> > has multiple interfaces.
>
> The issue is that the postfix.service unit has After=network.target
> (which is fine
On 5/16/24 6:40 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem has
existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe the
server has multiple interfaces.
ifconfig shows just the primary ethernet interface, but "ip addr" shows
On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 21:40 -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem
> has existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe
> the server has multiple interfaces.
>
> ifconfig shows just the primary ethernet inter
Once upon a time, Alex said:
> I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem has
> existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe the server
> has multiple interfaces.
The issue is that the postfix.service unit has After=network.target
(which is
On 5/16/24 18:40, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem has
existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe the server
has multiple interfaces.
ifconfig shows just the primary ethernet interface, but "ip addr" shows the
rest.
Hi,
I have a fedora38 server with postfix-3.7.9 (although this problem has
existed for a long time) that fails to start because I believe the server
has multiple interfaces.
ifconfig shows just the primary ethernet interface, but "ip addr" shows the
rest. There are five total interfac
> Date: Thursday, January 05, 2023 17:06:40 -0700
> From: Sbob
>
># echo 'Test 5' | mail -s "Test: $(date)"
># my_user@my_fastmail_domain.com
>
>
> and now I see this in /var/log/maillog :
>
> Jan 5 17:03:37 F37-Server postfix/pickup[916]:
I found the maillog, per an entry I found I changed a couple of the
settings in /etc/postfix/main.cf, it said these were required:
smtp_tls_wrappermode = yes
smtp_tls_security_level = encrypt
Then I ran:
# systemctl enable --now postfix.service
and another test:
# echo 'Test 5'
this for mailx:
>
># mailx
> No mail for root
>
>
> Is there another log to look at?
You seem to have looked for (new) mail for root. You need to look in
the log files. For postfix that's generally /var/log/maillog, but you
may have set it up differently.
[to keep thing
I see this for mailx:
# mailx
No mail for root
Is there another log to look at?
On 1/5/23 16:44, Richard wrote:
Date: Thursday, January 05, 2023 16:31:49 -0700
From: Sbob
when I run a test like this:
# echo 'It worked! 4' | mail -s "Test: $(date)"u...@somedomain.com
No mail ever shows u
> Date: Thursday, January 05, 2023 16:31:49 -0700
> From: Sbob
>
>
> when I run a test like this:
>
># echo 'It worked! 4' | mail -s "Test: $(date)" u...@somedomain.com
>
> No mail ever shows up,
Before trying to debug this in more detail, what's in the mail log on
your sending server?
___
All;
I started setting up a sendmail server, but have now switched to a
sendmail server.
I setup a new Fedora 37 server VM and have taken these steps per
https://fedoramagazine.org/use-postfix-to-get-email-from-your-fedora-system/
1)
# dnf install postfix mailx
2)
# MY_EMAIL_ADDRESS
Good morning,
TL;DR
If your Fedora 36 Postfix SPF configuration is broken due to the
latest pypolicyd-spf update, install python3-authres and restart
postfix to get it working again.
I noticed when I updated my system this past weekend that SPF was no
longer working after receiving
Hi,
I have a fedora32 server system with amavisd and postfix installed and
would like to block all email from China and a number of other
countries. It doesn't look like there's an easy way to do this.
Perhaps a better approach would be to block all email and only allow
connectio
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 18:51:57 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/12/20 6:03 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:44:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> >>> I have selinux enforcing and postfix
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 18:51:57 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/12/20 6:03 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:44:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> >>> I have selinux enforcing and postfix
On 4/12/20 6:03 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:44:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that postfix does
not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:44:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that
> > postfix does not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux sets it
> >
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:44:44 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that
> > postfix does not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux sets it
> >
On 4/12/20 11:56 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that postfix does
not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux sets it to work again).
You need to describe how you have it configured and what isn't work
Am 12.04.2020 um 22:49 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:45:00 +0200 Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 12.04.2020 um 20:56 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Hi,
I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that postfix does
not "work" if selinux is enabled (se
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 21:45:00 +0200 Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 12.04.2020 um 20:56 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that
> > postfix does not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce
Am 12.04.2020 um 20:56 schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Hi,
I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that postfix does
not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux sets it to work again).
[ ... ]
but I am not sure: are these the best ways to use po
Hi,
I have selinux enforcing and postfix for mail delivery. It turns out that
postfix does not "work" if selinux is enabled (setenforce 0 selinux sets it to
work again).
However, I don't really want to leave selinux in disabled mode. So, I was
looking around and found the fo
On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 10:55 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-03-24 04:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 03:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > On 2020-03-23 23:06, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > > > Yes, indeed. Can it be paused while
On 2020-03-24 12:50, Tim via users wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 10:06 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>> btw, postfix is started via systemd but not VPN, that is, it is not
>> started via systemd.
> What about, using whatever method you use to start and stop VPN, you
> i
On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 10:06 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> btw, postfix is started via systemd but not VPN, that is, it is not
> started via systemd.
What about, using whatever method you use to start and stop VPN, you
include start and stop commands for postfix?
--
uname -rsvp
Linux
On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 08:20 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> I am using postfix to deliver my work mail from a remote location.
> This works fine when I am on VPN (the postfix traffic goes through
> VPN then). However, it gets identified as spam when VPN is not up.
> Since most p
On 2020-03-24 04:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 03:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 2020-03-23 23:06, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>>> Yes, indeed. Can it be paused while VPN is not up? And btw, postfix is
>>> started via systemd but not VPN
On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 03:27 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-03-23 23:06, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > Yes, indeed. Can it be paused while VPN is not up? And btw, postfix is
> > started via systemd but not VPN, that is, it is not started via systemd.
>
> How about running
On 2020-03-23 23:06, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Yes, indeed. Can it be paused while VPN is not up? And btw, postfix is
> started via systemd but not VPN, that is, it is not started via systemd.
How about running postfix in a VM where the VPN is always up?
--
The key to getting good answers
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 22:58:25 +0800 Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 2020-03-23 22:49, Kai Bojens wrote:
> > Am 2020-03-23 14:20, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
> >
> >> So, I am wondering if I could please set up my services for postfix to
> >> be delayed unless/until VPN is u
On 2020-03-23 22:49, Kai Bojens wrote:
> Am 2020-03-23 14:20, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
>
>> So, I am wondering if I could please set up my services for postfix to
>> be delayed unless/until VPN is up and running. If so, how do I go
>> about doing this?
>
> If your
Am 2020-03-23 14:20, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
So, I am wondering if I could please set up my services for postfix to
be delayed unless/until VPN is up and running. If so, how do I go
about doing this?
If your VPN is started via systemd you should take a look at Wants,
Requires, Before, and
Dear friends,
I am using postfix to deliver my work mail from a remote location. This works
fine when I am on VPN (the postfix traffic goes through VPN then). However, it
gets identified as spam when VPN is not up. Since most people do not routinely
check their spam folders especially when the
n recognizes both the interfaces.
>
> It should be on the IPV4 (and IPV6) tab for the specific VPN config
Thanks for this. However, it appears that my postfix does use VPN when it is
on. I guess I now have to figure out how to force postfix to delay service
until VPN is on (because VPN is not always
On Sat, 2020-03-21 at 09:05 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Where do you find this checkbox? I have looked at all the GUI options
> but can not find it. Btw, NetworkManager in the Connection
> Information recognizes both the interfaces.
It should be on the IPV4 (and IPV6) tab for the specific VPN c
t all the GUI options but can
not find it. Btw, NetworkManager in the Connection Information recognizes both
the interfaces.
Thanks,
Ranjan
>
>
> On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 22:46 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am on a fully updated F31 and I would like my t
fully updated F31 and I would like my traffic (especially
> postfix) to go through Cisco's AnyConnect VPN when that is up. (I am
> reduced to having to use this proprietary software because of 2-
> factor authentication required for VPN at my institution.)
>
> Anyway, I came across
Hi,
I am on a fully updated F31 and I would like my traffic (especially postfix) to
go through Cisco's AnyConnect VPN when that is up. (I am reduced to having to
use this proprietary software because of 2-factor authentication required for
VPN at my institution.)
Anyway, I came acros
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:05:55 -0400
Tom Horsley wrote:
> SASL mechanisms LOGIN XOAUTH2
Hey! I just found the problem. The XOAUTH2 is what doesn't work.
I finally discovered the smtp_sasl_mechanism_filter parameter
and set it to just login, and the mail is flowing again.
Since oauth2 was invented
I had postfix setup to relay all the mail from my
desktop to the stoopid office365 server we are forced
to use at work. It worked fine on fedora 27.
Now, with everything configured identically
on fedora 28, postfix can't seem to send out any mail.
I don't suppose anyone else has
Cristian Sava writes:
I don't see any mention that glibc-2.25 has disabled SSLV3 and
glibc.spec does not seem to disable it. Am I missing something?
Maybe that's because glibc don't give a fig about SSL.
I really haven't been paying much attention, but I must've been out of town
when glibc
On 10/05/17 10:45, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 10/04/2017 04:15 PM, Nelson Crosby wrote:
>> Because Legacy Software, I need to be able to support SSLv3 on my
>> Postfix server. From what I can figure, however, this is disabled
>> in the SSL library itself, as I still ca
On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 18:46 +1300, Nelson Crosby wrote:
> ... However, with the following in
> `/etc/postfix/main.cf`:
>
> smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2
> smtpd_tls_protocols = !SSLv2
>
> I can run `postconf -d` and get this output:
>
> sm
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:46:10PM +1300, Nelson Crosby wrote:
> On 05/10/17 15:45, Samuel Sieb wrote:
...
>
> It *has* been suggested to me that Postfix might be inserting `!SSLv3`
> because
> OpenSSL doesn't have that support compiled in. I think this might not be the
are forbidden while everything else is
allowed (i.e. TLSv1+).
Upon further investigation, I have noticed that instead I need:
smtpd_tls_protocols = !SSLv2
Which has the same defaults. However, with the following in
`/etc/postfix/main.cf`:
smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2
On 10/04/2017 04:15 PM, Nelson Crosby wrote:
Because Legacy Software, I need to be able to support SSLv3 on my
Postfix server. From what I can figure, however, this is disabled
in the SSL library itself, as I still cannot get a successful
handshake with the following configuration line, which
On 10/05/17 07:15, Nelson Crosby wrote:
> Because Legacy Software, I need to be able to support SSLv3 on my
> Postfix server. From what I can figure, however, this is disabled
> in the SSL library itself, as I still cannot get a successful
> handshake with the following configuration
Hi all.
Because Legacy Software, I need to be able to support SSLv3 on my
Postfix server. From what I can figure, however, this is disabled
in the SSL library itself, as I still cannot get a successful
handshake with the following configuration line, which seems to me
like it should be enough to
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:26:29 +0200
Walter H. wrote:
> what is this?
> header_checks tells this and I'm used to use pcre with postfix ...
Perhaps postfix-pcre isn't installed?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Hello,
Jun 19 20:18:01 fedorabox postfix/smtp[4723]: error: unsupported
dictionary type: pcre
what is this?
header_checks tells this and I'm used to use pcre with postfix ...
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtp_header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/smtp_hdr_chks.pcre
smtp_mime_header_c
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:06 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> > If not, why did it want to print this gibberish and confuse me?
>
> It has a strange sense of humor?
That may be it :-). It sure seems like something thing might
possibly belong in rpmlint where the packager might see it,
but spewing mea
things for my new
> f24 partition, this nonsense appeared:
>
> Installing : postfix-2:3.1.0-1.fc24.x86_64
1088/3005
> The unit files have no [Install] section. They are not meant to be enabled
> using systemctl.
> Possible reasons for having this kind of units are:
> 1) A
The subject line had an unfortunate typo the last time I sent
this. Let's try again with a fixed subject and see if anyone
can tell me what the heck this means :-).
Running dnf install to pick up loads of things for my new
f24 partition, this nonsense appeared:
Installing : postfix-2:3.
from:arnaud.gabo...@thetradinghall.com
>> 502 5.5.2 Error: command not recognized
>> mail from:arnaud.gabo...@thetradinghall.com
>> 250 2.1.0 Ok
>> rcpt to:arnaud.gabo...@gmail.com
>> 454 4.7.1 : Relay access denied
>> ------
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2016, arnaud gaboury sent:
>
>> When looking at my DNS provider (Hurricane Electric), I effectively
>> have no PTR record. I must set one but honestly, I am far from
>> understanding everything about PTR.
>
> Unless y
On 02/09/2016 09:32 PM, Tim wrote:
Unless you have a unique IP, one that's always assigned solely to you,
your ISP is unlikely to set a PTR record for you.
The correct term for that is "static IP."
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options
Allegedly, on or about 09 February 2016, arnaud gaboury sent:
> When looking at my DNS provider (Hurricane Electric), I effectively
> have no PTR record. I must set one but honestly, I am far from
> understanding everything about PTR.
Unless you have a unique IP, one that's always assigned solely
On 10Feb2016 07:47, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 02/10/16 07:29, Ed Greshko wrote:
I don't know if postfix has that
sort of configuration option.
Actually, I would start here to check my configuration. Links found on this
page
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html point to postfix h
On 02/10/16 07:29, Ed Greshko wrote:
> I don't know if postfix has that
> sort of configuration option.
Actually, I would start here to check my configuration. Links found on this
page
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html point to postfix having
configuration
opti
t; mail from:arnaud.gabo...@thetradinghall.com
> 250 2.1.0 Ok
> rcpt to:arnaud.gabo...@gmail.com
> 454 4.7.1 : Relay access denied
> -------
>
> $ journactl --unit postfix -r
> ------
On 2/9/2016 8:57 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
Well, looking at my DNS provider home page, I have an entry to add
PTR. Furthermore, from HE FAQ[0]:
Am I wrong to think I can do it with my DNS provider ?
I went through this same issue with my ISP and they said they had to be
the ones to change
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Tom Rivers wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 8:57 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, looking at my DNS provider home page, I have an entry to add
>> PTR. Furthermore, from HE FAQ[0]:
>>
>> > whatever means you wish, assuming you wish to do so at all. This page
>> is meant
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Tom Rivers wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 8:14 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
>>
>> When looking at my DNS provider (Hurricane Electric), I effectively
>> have no PTR record. I must set one but honestly, I am far from
>> understanding everything about PTR.
>
>
> The only people wh
On 2/9/2016 8:14 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
When looking at my DNS provider (Hurricane Electric), I effectively
have no PTR record. I must set one but honestly, I am far from
understanding everything about PTR.
The only people who can set up a PTR record are those who work for your
ISP. You ha
I am setting up a mail server with Postfix and bump my head about an
issue since a few days.
Issue:
Testing with Telnet:
% telnet mail.thetradinghall.com 587
Trying MyPublicIp...
Connected to mail.thetradinghall.com.
Escape character is '^]&
Allegedly, on or about 26 January 2016, arnaud gaboury sent:
> Now when testing with telent, I don't have the answer expected :
> 220 mail.thetradinghall.com ESMTP Postfix
>
> $ telnet mail.thetradinghall.com 25
> Trying 212.147.52.214...
> Connected to mail.thetradinghall.
ing 212.147.52.214...
Connected to mail.thetradinghall.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.thetradinghall.com ESMTP Postfix
ehlo greshko.com
250-mail.thetradinghall.com
250-PIPELINING
250-SIZE 1024
250-VRFY
250-ETRN
250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
250-8BITMIME
250-DSN
250 SMTPUTF8
--
In
I am running Fedora 23 server. Among other services, I want to deploy
a mail server with postfix.
1- I registered on my DNS provider a A and MX records:
mail.thetradinghall.com.86400INA212.147.52.214
thetradinghall.com
still setting up my new fedora 22... I forgot about local user email &
IMAP.. I thought I saved my config files, but it seems they got
overwritten.. anyway, I installed & setup dovecot & postfix, but I am
still not getting mail for my local user.. here is what maillog says:
ug 18 13
On 04/09/2015 02:34 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 01:38 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 22:06 schrieb Andy Blanchard:
Yep. Get it on the same network as the server and run the command:
telnet 192.168.10.1 25
Now
Am 09.04.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 01:38 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 22:06 schrieb Andy Blanchard:
Yep. Get it on the same network as the server and run the command:
telnet 192.168.10.1 25
Now guess what - it says
telnet: Unable to connect to re
On 04/09/2015 01:38 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 22:06 schrieb Andy Blanchard:
Yep. Get it on the same network as the server and run the command:
telnet 192.168.10.1 25
Now guess what - it says
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
That's not good.
Am 09.04.2015 um 22:05 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 01:01 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 12:46 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:30 schrieb Mike Wright:
You can try running tcpdump to watch incoming con
...
Disabling SELinux didn't help.
You *should* get a welcome banner from Postfix. If you do, type
"QUIT" to exit cleanly - this means the problem is almost certainly
with the router.
If you don't, and based on your previous reply to Mike Wright I
suspect that is going to be the
On 09.04.2015, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
> I have some old laptop running debian. Can I do something with it - without
> setting up another mail server on it? :-)
Yes. Take it with you to a friend and run a tcptraceroute to your mailserver.
It will tell you exactly where it stops.
--
users m
On 04/09/2015 01:01 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 12:46 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:30 schrieb Mike Wright:
You can try running tcpdump to watch incoming connections while you
send
yourself an email from
Yep. Get it on the same network as the server and run the command:
telnet 192.168.10.1 25
You *should* get a welcome banner from Postfix. If you do, type
"QUIT" to exit cleanly - this means the problem is almost certainly
with the router.
If you don't, and based on your previou
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Mike Wright:
On 04/09/2015 12:46 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 21:30 schrieb Mike Wright:
You can try running tcpdump to watch incoming connections while you send
yourself an email from gmail/yahoo etc. That will let you know if mail
is ar
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
