* Ori Bani orib...@gmail.com:
Hello,
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
In my case, I have virtual maildirs under /var/spool/postfix and those
would be relocated to elsewhere (onto slower normal
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
* Ori Bani orib...@gmail.com:
Hello,
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
In my case, I have virtual maildirs
Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender come
to the postmaster?
I vote bug. :-)
Any workarounds to prevent this in the meantime?
Cheers,
Sabahattin
Hi All,
Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
I do have broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes. Postfix version is 2.7.0,
running on an
Am 30.01.2012 14:47, schrieb James Seymour:
Hi All,
Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
I do have
On 1/30/2012 7:47 AM, James Seymour wrote:
Hi All,
Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
I do have broken_sasl_auth_clients =
James Seymour:
Hi All,
Just upgraded our mailserver. Thought I had everything set the same as
I did with the old one. Nonetheless, of all the people who *can't*
send email, it would have to be the President of the company.
Have you compared the SMTP server EHLO replies (with openssl
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
[snip]
at least show some parts of the logfile
Very well. Not much to see...
Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
c-68-43-238-106.hsd1.mi.comcast.net[68.43.238.106] Jan 29 20:42:27 mail
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:08:55 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
[snip]
Have you compared the SMTP server EHLO replies (with openssl
s_client)?
No. That'd be difficult, tho not impossible, to do at this point, as
the old server is up in storage.
But this is certainly an
Am 30.01.2012 15:16, schrieb James Seymour:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
[snip]
at least show some parts of the logfile
Very well. Not much to see...
Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
The above simple example catches *EVERYTHING* and is suitable to be
used in a lab or test setting. This is consistent with the initial
request as I understand it.
If the request was incomplete, it should be clarified.
Yes, I want to catch everything. The dev/qa environments use different
MTAs
On 1/30/2012 8:16 AM, James Seymour wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:51 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
[snip]
at least show some parts of the logfile
Very well. Not much to see...
Jan 29 20:42:26 mail postfix/smtps/smtpd[7781]: connect from
On 1/30/2012 9:10 AM, Eric Chandler wrote:
My hope is that I could create a separate maildir for each recipient,
no-matter if the recipient has a standard corporate email address, or
Creating wildcard users is more complicated.
You can easily wildcard virtual domains with
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:21:36 -0600
Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
[snip]
If the client attempts SASL, postfix will log either success or
failure. Looks as if the client didn't even try.
Exactly. And that should've been my clue that the mechanism(s) offered
weren't to the client's
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
* Ori Bani orib...@gmail.com:
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the
postfix queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive
Ok, I think for me the easiest way will be to simply port it out to a
milter to do the job and simply discard the message. I'm very good a
milter code, so that will probably allow me to do all sorts of special
stuff on top of what I would eventually get out of postfix configuration
magic, given
On 30 January 2012 12:49, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
* Ori Bani orib...@gmail.com:
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:47:39PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
The answer depends on your real goals. Mounting the spool on an
SSD is only your real goal if you're are a
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:03:39PM +, Mark Alan wrote:
Regarding the config option:
postscreen_access_list = static:retry
Where is retry documented as a valid access list keyword?
3) the similar syntax of 'transport_maps = static:retry'
The transport table is not access(5) table, and
Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Sabahattin Gucukoglu m...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com:
Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender
come to the postmaster?
Here's what happens. First, mail to the null address goes to
MAILER-DAEMON by default:
empty_address_recipient
On 1/30/2012 5:07 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
Hi All,
My relay servers have mail being received but unable to send. When I
type mailq I see: Delivery temporarily suspended….Connection timed
out. I also noticed this line:
Tarpitting active for [1.2.3.4)
I restarted postfix, flushed mailq
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:50:52 +, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26:42PM +, Mark Alan wrote:
Is there any other way to make the postscreen/postfix
combination temporarily defer all incoming emails with '450
4.3.2 Service currently
Mark Alan:
Would the following be an acceptable way to do it?
postconf -e 'postscreen_access_list = reject'
postconf -e 'soft_bounce = yes'
Only if this is documented. The soft_bounce parameter is listed on
the postscreen(8) manpage, this is perhaps a sufficient promise to
I'll keep this short for now in case it's a known problem but if more logs are
required let me know.
I've configured postfix to allow SASL authenticated users (dovecot sasl) to
relay.
I've tested this and confirmed it works from within Outlook 2007 and 2010.
However trying the same account
Hi it seems to be a layer 3 issue, according to the description I will check
any firewall or router at the perimeters end.
Have you checked that? Have you tried tcpdump to check if those packets are
leaving the box?
Thats just a thought, I hope it helps.
Regards.
Saludos
Ing. Alfonso
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:30:33 +
James Day james@ontraq.com wrote:
[snip]
... trying the same account details from Windows Live
Mail throws up a:
554 Relay Access denied error message.
[snip]
IIRC, Relay access denied is a symptom of a non-SSL attempted
connection/login when
On 1/30/2012 9:32 PM, Jim Seymour wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:30:33 +
James Day james@ontraq.com wrote:
[snip]
... trying the same account details from Windows Live
Mail throws up a:
554 Relay Access denied error message.
[snip]
IIRC, Relay access denied is a symptom of a
On 1/30/2012 6:46 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
Thank you Noel. Our server sends out copies of email confirmations
to our clients and if the client decides to make a large order they
end up pushing our volume up and we end up getting blocked by their
mail server. I seem to be getting connection
On 1/30/2012 10:30 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/30/2012 6:46 PM, Gonzo Fernandez wrote:
Thank you Noel. Our server sends out copies of email confirmations
to our clients and if the client decides to make a large order they
end up pushing our volume up and we end up getting blocked by their
mail
I was reading about Defferred queue full of dictionary attack bounces which I
think might be an issue here.
So i performed a qshape analysis and I got this:
command: qshape deferred | head
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
Thanks for your input guys. As I suspected I need to dig a bit deeper. Here is
the relevant portion of my mail log using Windows Live Mail to send:
[...snip]
Jan 31 07:27:51 vps03 postfix/smtpd[3923]: connect from unknown[IP_REMOVED]
Jan 31 07:27:51 vps03 postfix/smtpd[3923]: NOQUEUE: reject:
31 matches
Mail list logo
