Thanks all..
incorrect permissions on my libnss-mysql.cfg file..
alot of hair pulling for such a simple problem..
Tx..
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Victor Duchovni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:04:27PM +0200, Ilo Lorusso wrote:
perl -le 'for (@ARGV) { print
Oct 29 10:27:58 av3 postfix/smtpd[16988]: connect from
unknown[xxx.yyy.www.zzz]
Oct 29 10:27:58 av3 postfix/smtpd[16988]: 7B98D75008D:
client=unknown[xxx.yyy.www.zzz]
Oct 29 10:34:25 av3 postfix/smtpd[16988]: timeout after DATA from
unknown[xxx.yyy.www.zzz]
Oct 29 10:34:25 av3
* Samy Ascha, Xel Media B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you guyz have any smart ideas on how to treat mail for this domain
a little different from other mail, so I don't have to change our mail-
setup globally?
The document available at
http://www.postfix.org/QSHAPE_README.html#backlog
shows
Hello,
I'm facing a problem with a client that can't send email trough my mail
gateway..
After connection, in mail log, I get:
postfix/smtpd[19545]: warning: unknown[xxx.yyy.www.zzz]: SASL LOGIN
authentication failed: authentication failure
then
postfix/smtpd[19545]: lost connection after
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thx Stefan,
I have written and setup custom transports before (autoreply, sms) so
I had no trouble setting up a dedicated 'chello' transport with, to be
abs. sure, only 1 maxproc:
master.cf:
chello unix - - - - 1
Tony Yarusso schrieb:
We're having no end of trouble setting up a new server here, so I'm
hoping someone can explain what's going on. Basically, we have a new
server that of course will generate messages from cron jobs, PHP
mailers, and that sort of thing, and we want them to be able to make
* Samy Ascha, Xel Media B.V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added a [chello.nl - chello:] mapping to the SQL back-end and a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - @chello.nl] virtual mapping to fix the unknown local
user (550) error.
I don't understand exactly. What you need is a transport_maps entry
(i.e. an entry
Charles Marcus ha scritto:
On 10/29/2008, Joe Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All our production boxes are 100% reiserfs, and have been for some
years, based on performance testing. They have been rock solid, and most
of them have 800 day uptimes at this point. I did some performance
Rocco Scappatura:
12:31:06.808714 O client.1395 server.25: . 1931191:1932551(1360) ack
358 win 65178 (DF)
Can you show the TCP handshake (SYN/SYN+ACK/ACK) with TCP options.
Wietse
Hi,
We had MTA's that used a local AntiVirus to check incoming mails for
virus (throw) and spam (mark and deliver)
and outgoing mails for virus (reject)
Now we added an extra layer of hosts to run the AntiVirus and SPAM
checks for he incoming mails...
but we still want to use the local one
Hi all,
My server has the next anvil(8) config:
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit = 100
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit = 20
It works fine, and when I test it from another SMTP (sending a mail to
30 recipients) the logs shows cleary:
Oct 30 15:55:00 mail09 postfix/smtpd[11279]: warning:
hi !
this is the logmessage i get when postfix rejects a sender ip when not found
in $mynetowrks
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[192.168.0.29]: 451 4.3.5 Server
configuration error; from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
proto=SMTP helo=amisdf.sdfsdf.at
Oct 30 12:38:12 smallsau
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Jordi Espasa Clofent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
My server has the next anvil(8) config:
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit = 100
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit = 20
It works fine, and when I test it from another SMTP (sending a mail to 30
Hi People,
This user, citi.com send mail to mydomain, in the log file (postfix)
verify messagem:
Oct 30 13:46:23 mx postfix/smtpd[27167]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtp2.citigroup.com[192.193.221.103]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
problem; from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:52:18PM -0200, M?rcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Hi People,
This user, citi.com send mail to mydomain, in the log file (postfix)
verify messagem:
Oct 30 13:46:23 mx postfix/smtpd[27167]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smtp2.citigroup.com[192.193.221.103]: 451 4.3.5 Server
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:53:30PM +0100, Simone Felici wrote:
I've also hear people who have had nightmares with ext3...
No filesystem is perfect.
No filesystem is perfect, that's certainty so.
Sure, no filesystem exhibits *optimal* performance under all work-loads,
but in terms of
Leutnant Steiner wrote:
hi !
this is the logmessage i get when postfix rejects a sender ip when not
found in $mynetowrks
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[192.168.0.29
http://192.168.0.29]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error;
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to=[EMAIL
On Oct 29, 2008, at 1:29 AM, Simone Felici wrote:
I know, there is enough written on the net and on the mailinglist
too, but have found only old results, maybe the meanwhile something
is different, also I would ask you...
Which filesystem do you use on your mailserver?
I'm going to migrate
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:09:46AM -0700, Jay Chandler wrote:
I would create the system on EXT3 (RHES) and the following
partitions on rieserfs:
/var/spool/postfix AND the partition that will contain all mails in
MailDir format.
At the moment the server has ~100.000 mailboxes and more or
On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Tony Yarusso wrote:
We're having no end of trouble setting up a new server here, so I'm
hoping someone can explain what's going on. Basically, we have a new
server that of course will generate messages from cron jobs, PHP
mailers, and that sort of thing, and we
Joe Sloan wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Simone Felici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Postfix-Users!
I know, there is enough written on the net and on the mailinglist too, but
have found only old results, maybe the meanwhile something is different,
also I would ask you...
Which
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Sloan wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Simone Felici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Postfix-Users!
I know, there is enough written on the net and on the mailinglist too,
but have found only old results, maybe the meanwhile
Leutnant Steiner wrote:
hi !
this is the logmessage i get when postfix rejects a sender ip when not
found in $mynetowrks
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[192.168.0.29 http://192.168.0.29]:
451 4.3.5 Server configuration error; from=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL
Victor Duchovni escreveu:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:52:18PM -0200, M?rcio Luciano Donada wrote:
Hi People,
This user, citi.com send mail to mydomain, in the log file (postfix)
verify messagem:
Oct 30 13:46:23 mx postfix/smtpd[27167]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
Bryan Irvine:
How long ago was that? I had the precise problem and had been told
that particular bug has been fixed. My problems were ~5 years ago.
Except that I'm never going to use it anyway because I just can't
force myself to trust it. I've used Postfix under ext3, ffs(openbsd),
Jordi Espasa Clofent:
Hi all,
My server has the next anvil(8) config:
smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit = 100
smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit = 20
It works fine, and when I test it from another SMTP (sending a mail to
30 recipients) the logs shows cleary:
Oct 30 15:55:00 mail09
I recently upgraded a couple of servers from postfix 2.2 to 2.5.
No configuration changes except those made by the upgrade scripts.
Now, during large mailings, the two new servers have frequent qmgr
crashes, while the ones running 2.2 do not. The problem is qmgr runs
up against the per-process
Ofer Inbar:
I recently upgraded a couple of servers from postfix 2.2 to 2.5.
No configuration changes except those made by the upgrade scripts.
Now, during large mailings, the two new servers have frequent qmgr
crashes, while the ones running 2.2 do not. The problem is qmgr runs
up against
Dear all,
Is that possible to implement phpldapadmin phamm or puma on
jamm.schema currently implemented for postfix+ldap in the server. Can
some one give me helpful urls or steps for configuring phpldapadmin
using the ldap, jamm.schema which will be quite useful for me.
Regards,
Hemanth
On
Victor Duchovni wrote, at 10/30/2008 12:44 PM:
Past reports of ReiserFS on this list indicate that it falls short
of reasonable (i.e. perfect) data integrity expectations.
I also value data integrity over performance and will add that XFS never
made it out of my punishment closet into a
Ofer Inbar:
What I'm trying to understand is *why* it's hitting the limit.
If you wonder why 2.5 qmgr uses MORE file dscriptors than 2.2, that
has to do with small improvements so that qmgr can keep more delivery
agents busy. Each delivery agent corresponds with one qmgr socket.
My
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:53:30PM +0100, Simone Felici wrote:
I've also hear people who have had nightmares with ext3...
No filesystem is perfect.
No filesystem is perfect, that's certainty so.
Sure, no filesystem exhibits *optimal* performance
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Mounting user maildirs via NFS is supported, mounting the P
Doh, my error. You are of course correct-- this was in a pre-maildir
environment, so /var/mail was mounted via NFS; the moving parts for
Postfix lived on FreeBSD's UFS.
Thanks Wietse.
I went ahead and disabled the VRFY verb and have not had any resulting
adverse affects yet.
2008/10/29 Wietse Venema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That understanding is not supported by RFC 821, 2821, ...
Oh, yeah. Those. I have flipped through them a few times but didn't on this
For me XFS seemed very fast. But usually I use ext3, which is proven
to be stable enough for most situations.
--
Regards
Dulmandakh
Hi folks,
Sorry in advance if it's well known matter.
I have some troubles about nested_header_checks in main.cf of postfix.
[environment]
- OS Solaris10sparc
- postfix mail_version = 2.4.6
% postconf header_checks
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
% postconf
36 matches
Mail list logo
