Sahil,
I have rechecked my configuration and googled for any root cause for
this failure, i didn't find any clue.
Before configuring SMTP-AUTH, i know mail are reaching outside when
mail sent to alias, so i am planing to check disabling SMTP-AUTH.
will update the result.
Regards,
Ramesh.
---
Michel S?bastien:
Hi all.
I use LMTP transport to deliver mails into Cyrus and when asking
DSN success I got an action relayed.
Besides final delivery, LMTP is also used to deliver mail into
content filters. The advantage of LMTP is that the protocol reports
one end-of-message
That's right, the logs show the program name (smtp) not the transport
name; you can't tell which transport called smtp.
You can add something like
-o syslog_name=postfix-slow
to the master.cf slow transport entry to differentiate the logging.
That's it. Postfix is awesome and very well
Hi.
I have a secondary MX server with qmail that I'm migrating to postfix.
Currently, my qmail server checks RCPT TO addresses against a plain text
file that contains all the valid email accounts for some of the domains
that is making MX-backup for. That plain-text file is scp'ed from the
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:01:09PM CET, Santiago Romero
srom...@servicom2000.com said:
Hi.
I have a secondary MX server with qmail that I'm migrating to postfix.
Currently, my qmail server checks RCPT TO addresses against a plain text
file that contains all the valid email accounts for
Santiago Romero wrote:
To summarize it, currently I have 2 files called:
valid_accounts.txt: a list of valid accounts in the primary MX.
domains_to_check_user.txt: Holds a list of domains. Server only checks
RCPT against valid_accounts.txt for the domains present in this file.
When a new
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to
intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers.
These servers send mail on behalf
of our clients. I'm trying
Postfix calls domains that it accepts mail for but delivers elsewhere
(such as MX backups) relay_domains. You can use a plain text file or
any supported postfix map type.
The list if valid recipients in those domains is specified in
relay_recipient_maps. Specify one or more map files
Chris Dos wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to
intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers.
These servers send mail on behalf
of our
Santiago Romero wrote:
Postfix calls domains that it accepts mail for but delivers elsewhere
(such as MX backups) relay_domains. You can use a plain text file or
any supported postfix map type.
The list if valid recipients in those domains is specified in
relay_recipient_maps. Specify
Rahmathulla KM wrote:
Dear Techies,
I am trying to implement an access control on an alias email account
called us...@domain.com mailto:us...@domain.com. I need to allow only
few users to send mail to this alias. I tried many of the combination
and didnt got a +ve result yet. I tried
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay
servers to intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix
servers. These servers send
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay
servers to intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix
servers. These
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Chris Dos ch...@chrisdos.com wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to
intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three
Peter Blair wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Chris Dos ch...@chrisdos.com wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to
intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail
Well, your outbound postfix machines will route the bounces to
whatever address is used in the mail from:foo envelope. Just run
a catchall at the domain of choice and a script to parse the messages.
Your outbound mail server doesn't send bounces to the addresses in
the headers, it sends it to
The problem still: users on vacation generate auto-response to
incoming email id'd as spam. I use a recipient_delimiter and
amavisd/spamassassin to flad incoming mail as spam with +Spam. I'd
really like to stop this to avoid backscatter issues, be a good
netizen, and not validate addresses
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it.
It anyway looks like sending the SSL/TLS state requires an additional
parameter to
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it.
How is this useful? It
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it.
post...@corwyn.net a écrit :
The problem still: users on vacation generate auto-response to incoming
email id'd as spam. I use a recipient_delimiter and amavisd/spamassassin
to flad incoming mail as spam with +Spam. I'd really like to stop this
to avoid backscatter issues, be a good
KLaM Postmaster a écrit :
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sun February 22 2009 16:05:09 KLaM Postmaster wrote:
Is this mailing list closed (or fairly closed), I only ask because if
it is then there does not seem to any good reason to munge addresses,
domain names etc.
If it open (that is publicly
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other
Chris Dos a écrit :
[snip]
Well, the simple fact is that they want me to process the bounce backs and
not send the bounce back to the
user, but process it internally. Is there a way to do this without using
VERP?
you can use smtp_generic_maps to rewrite the sender address when
outbound
Timo Sirainen:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot.
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's basically the same thing as disable plaintext authentication,
except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis
rather than globally. There are probably some other use cases that I've
heard before but can't
Timo Sirainen:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's basically the same thing as disable plaintext authentication,
except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis
rather than globally. There are probably some other use cases that I've
heard
Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:11 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Timo Sirainen:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's basically the same thing as disable plaintext authentication,
except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis
rather than globally.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:40:05PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
It's too late for a few times (until user fixes the client
configuration), but not forever (because it won't work until the
configuration is fixed). Also with a laptop the initial setup is often
done in a relatively safe location
Ok, having pulled out all of the recipient_delimiter values (main.cf
and amavisd.conf), and not actually sending spam, I can pretty
clearly see that postfix is handing the vacation.pl code two separate
addresses, because vacation.pl runs twice. (The only reason I don't
get two vacation
Hi!
Im upgrading a server with Postfix and in the part to upgrade the Amaisd
from 2.1.2 version to 2.6.1 it appears the next message when Im in the debug
part:
Problem in Amavis::DB or Amavis::DB::SNMP code: Can't locate loadable object
for module BerkeleyDB in @INC (@INC contains:
Guys, i would like to understand the above said a little better and hence the
following questions;
1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have quota
implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for enforcment and notification?
1a. Is it ok to just set
mouss wrote:
KLaM Postmaster a écrit :
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sun February 22 2009 16:05:09 KLaM Postmaster wrote:
Is this mailing list closed (or fairly closed), I only ask because if
it is then there does not seem to any good reason to munge addresses,
domain names etc.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Linux Advocate wrote:
1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have
quota implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for enforcment and
notification?
Some admins like to set per user (or group) quotas via dovecot. Many dovecot
implementations use
replies below...
1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have
quota implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for enforcment and
notification?
Some admins like to set per user (or group) quotas via dovecot. Many dovecot
implementations use Maildir
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:13:11PM -0800, Linux Advocate wrote:
2. For a setup of about 1500 virtual users on a centos 5.2 machine with a
raid10 array and with 8gb of ram, what settings do i need to change in
postfix for better performance with regards to main.cf /master.cf. Dovecot
Sorry. Allow me to rephrase, is there any setting in postfix (main.cf,
master.cf) whereby we can increase the number of threads, memory usage
,etc to allow for higher concurrency?
1500 users is not very many. You probably don't need higher than default
concurrency.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:28:18PM -0800, Linux Advocate wrote:
Sorry. Allow me to rephrase, is there any setting in postfix (main.cf,
master.cf) whereby we can increase the number of threads, memory usage
,etc to allow for higher concurrency?
1500 users is not very many. You
victor, replies below
1500 users is not much? wow, how much users can a xeon dual processor box
with
a RAID10 array, 8 gigs of ram handle. i would appreciate a rough estimate?
Depends on how much content processing you force on the CPU. If it is
a webmail server, IMAP
--On Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:48 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
qua...@zimbra.com wrote:
Anyone have an insight into why? Postfix version is 2.4.7.
This is really a platform-specific question, that can be answered
only by people who have access to the affected OS.
Ok, but it's also
40 matches
Mail list logo
