Steven Truong a écrit :
Dear, all. I am running into a scenario where I might need to deliver
the same incoming email for a user to 2 different IMAP servers.
Is there anyway to implement it with Postfix with its various transport maps?
I have for example [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I would like
Linux Addict a écrit :
[snip]
local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $virtual_alias_maps
$alias_maps
remove $virtual_alias_maps from local_recipient_maps.
[snip]
mynetworks_style = class
remove mynetworks_style (mynetworks is enough).
[snip] relay_domains = $mydestination
set
-Original Message-
From: Natxo Asenjo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 October 2008 15:54
To: Paul Cocker
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: My first config - unable to telnet to port 25,
virtual.db missing
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Paul Cocker
[EMAIL
hі!
i have this in my main.cf:
destination_concurrency_feedback_debug = yes
default_destination_rate_delay = 10s
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 10
default_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 0.05
default_destination_concurrency_negative_feedback = 1
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:29 AM, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux Addict a écrit :
[snip]
local_recipient_maps = proxy:unix:passwd.byname $virtual_alias_maps
$alias_maps
remove $virtual_alias_maps from local_recipient_maps.
[snip]
mynetworks_style = class
remove
Linux Addict wrote:
Nevermind.. I did strings on one of the messages on deferred and got
the information.
use
postcat -q QUEUEID | more
to view the contents of a queued messsage.
--
Noel Jones
Erbil KARAMAN:
actually 'letting MTA figure out how to get it to the internet' is not
a great approach for high volume senders.
I meant just in terms of letting the primary postfix instance figure out
which other postfix instance to pass it to. It's a good generalised
solution that doesn't
Natxo Asenjo wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Paul Cocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume from your example that I need to insert an OK at the end of
each line, but the documentation
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relay_recipient_maps seems to
suggest I just need a list of
Greetings,
In the server log files I got back this morning, I see in the records
this entry:
1 Unknown
1 Unknown
1218.30.101.41unknown
Normally this will give me an email address on top, the AUTH type next,
and the IP at the bottom with
Indeed it's a postfix logwatch entry. Here's a grep of the IP address
from /var/log/maillog
triata postfix/smtpd[11490]: connect from unknown[218.30.101.41]
Oct 20 23:56:49 triata sqlgrey: grey: from awl match: updating
218.30.101.41(218.30.101.41),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Oct
Stroller wrote:
Hi there,
A customer of mine is, unfortunately, using BT Internet as her ISP,
and sending email via Postfix on Mac OS 10.4
It seems that she is not getting notification when mail is bounced
because this lame ISP rejects the from address of the bounce, and
another bounce is
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
I have a certain user that I try to send mail to on an Earthlink domain
and receive this error...
RCPT TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Recipient address rejected: unverified address: connect to
mx00-dom.earthlink.net[207.217.125.16]:25: Operation
On 21 Oct 2008, at 18:05, Stroller wrote:
...
I'm pretty sure that I read something about this a couple of weeks
ago (when I was setting this system up) and that a later version of
Postfix behaves in the desired manner, but I can't find the resource
for this now. I obviously wanted to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:06 AM, mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Truong a écrit :
Dear, all. I am running into a scenario where I might need to deliver
the same incoming email for a user to 2 different IMAP servers.
Is there anyway to implement it with Postfix with its various
On 21 Oct 2008, at 17:24, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Stroller wrote:
Hi there,
A customer of mine is, unfortunately, using BT Internet as her ISP,
and sending email via Postfix on Mac OS 10.4
It seems that she is not getting notification when mail is bounced
because this lame ISP
Stroller wrote:
Hi Brian,
I'll comment on your remarks regarding reject_unverified_sender later,
when I've had the opportunity to read / test thoroughly.
On 21 Oct 2008, at 17:24, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
...
BTW.. btopenworld.com use yahoo MXs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ host
On 21 Oct 2008, at 18:30, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
...
SASL is already configured on the host:
$ sudo grep btopenworld.com /etc/postfix/*
/etc/postfix/main.cf:relayhost = [mail.btopenworld.com]
/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd:mail.btopenworld.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:password
Binary file
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:34 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
The current best use view of reject_unverified_(recipient|sender) is
to
use for your domains that you control.
Thanks, and yes, I agree this should be done. We currently use LDAP
lookups for transports. Is there a way to tie
Robert Fitzpatrick a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:34 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
The current best use view of reject_unverified_(recipient|sender) is
to
use for your domains that you control.
Thanks, and yes, I agree this should be done. We currently use LDAP
lookups for
Asai wrote:
Greetings,
In the server log files I got back this morning, I see in the records
this entry:
1Unknown
1 Unknown
1218.30.101.41unknown
Normally this will give me an email address on top, the AUTH type next,
and the IP at the
MrC a écrit :
[snip]
But, your entry discovered a bug in the parsing of the sasl_sender=
portion of smtpd's client= log line. The output should look like:
1 SASL authenticated relayed messages --
This may be misleading. something like claimed SASL sender would be
I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily interested
in queue management, the ability to move stuff from queue to queue. I'm
already happily using postfix admin for mulit-domain admin and mailgraph
for basic
Postfix 2.2, CentOS 4 (yes, I want to upgrade; can't for now).
Note: I have a course of action, but not completely confident I
understand the problem so seeking other eyes on it. See bottom.
On a fallback relay serving several first-pass postfix servers, qmgr
seems to sometimes stop and rest
Asai wrote:
Indeed it's a postfix logwatch entry. Here's a grep of the IP address
from /var/log/maillog
triata postfix/smtpd[11490]: connect from unknown[218.30.101.41]
Oct 20 23:56:49 triata sqlgrey: grey: from awl match: updating
218.30.101.41(218.30.101.41),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL
I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating correctly:
The log from a session from my mail client (Thunderbird) says:
Oct 21
On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 23:23 CEST,
Terry Carmen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there is
something better than SpamAssassin
Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 5:29:59 PM, Jim Balo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to
Ofer Inbar:
Postfix 2.2, CentOS 4 (yes, I want to upgrade; can't for now).
Perhaps you should upgrade.
# strace -p 31741
Process 31741 attached - interrupt to quit
futex(0x2a96b46930, FUTEX_WAIT, 2, NULL ^Cunfinished ...
Postfix does not manipulate futexes. The word futex appears
nowhere in
On 22/10/2008, at 9:29 AM, Jim Balo wrote:
Hi,
I am currently using Postfix w/ Amavis-new, Pyzor, DCC and Clam.
I have trained the Bayesian Classifier with over 2,000 ham and 2,000
spam, but I am still getting quite a bit of spam.
I am about to install a new mail server and I wonder if there
Wietse Venema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# strace -p 31741
Process 31741 attached - interrupt to quit
futex(0x2a96b46930, FUTEX_WAIT, 2, NULL ^Cunfinished ...
Postfix does not manipulate futexes. The word futex appears
nowhere in Postfix source code.
However, there's a mutex deadlock in
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 22:07 CEST,
Stephen Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been browsing around for a bit but was wondering if any of you
could recommend a management tool for postfix. I'm primarily
interested in queue management, the ability to
You should post the results of 'postconf -n'. Perhaps you are missing
some
smtpd_*_restrictions items that could reduce the load.
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter = amavisfeed:[127.0.0.1]:10024
daemon_directory =
J.P. Trosclair wrote:
...
Could someone recommend a really good open source or affordable
commercial anti-spam solution?
...
I haven't done gray listing personally, but I've seen good remarks
made aobut it here on the list and in other places.
Depends on the source/nature of your spam.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Terry Carmen wrote:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address. /client.*\..*\..*/i 450
AUTO_CLIENT Email Rejected. You appear to be connecting from a Dynamic IP
address.
/cable.*\..*\..*/i 450
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jim Balo wrote:
You should post the results of 'postconf -n'. Perhaps you are missing
some
smtpd_*_restrictions items that could reduce the load.
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
content_filter =
The smarter greylisting engines will make an attempt to identify if the
mail is within the same /24 as a previously greylisted IP within the
specified time period to overcome this issue.
While obviously its not guaranteed to get around this issue, we are
greylisting for approximately 3000
Duane Hill wrote:
practically none would depend upon your amount of traffic. Our filter
servers get over seven million connections every 24 hours. Sane Security
does a fair job here at pushing the SpamAssassin score above the default
threshold. I would not suggest using the Sane Security
Andreas Schuldei:
h?!
i have this in my main.cf:
destination_concurrency_feedback_debug = yes
default_destination_rate_delay = 10s
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 10
default_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 0.05
default_destination_concurrency_negative_feedback = 1
Thanks to all for the input so far. I realize that a big part of my
spam problem is the fact that I do not know this area very well, so
have not done a whole lot to tweak the config. I really wish I had the
time to study this more in depth.
Anyhow, I added smtpd_client_restrictions to main.cf
From: Jim Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can highly recommend gray-listing. It's all I use on
two Postfix servers, and SPAM is reduced by 98%. A few
get through, but it's quite tolerable, and I
haven't seen
a false-positive in at least two years.
Hi,
Do you have any recommendation on
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Jim Balo wrote:
From: Jim Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can highly recommend gray-listing. It's all I use on
two Postfix servers, and SPAM is reduced by 98%. A few
get through, but it's quite tolerable, and I
haven't seen
a false-positive in at least two years.
Hi,
Do
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 100
This default is normally set to 20. Some servers may frown
on you
attempting to make 100 connections to their server.
relay_domains =
$mydestination
smtpd_recipient_limit = 5000
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks
Hi all,
I would like to ask does Postfix has some local delivery delay
parameter to set? Let's say delay for 1 second per each message id in
qmgr.
For example, if an user send a mail to 70 ncrpt (number of recipient)
at a time, Postfix will handle it as two seperate message and queued
at
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:02PM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
I have noticed occasional qmgr crashes with the watchdog timer error
occurring, usually when it's in the middle of deferring thousands of
messages for one domain all at once. I meant to investigate those.
However, based on the
All libspf2 users should read this post by Dan Kaminsky, and upgrade
libspf2 to 1.2.8 as soon as possible:
http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1263
Just in case anyone asks, and not surprisingly, the DNS code in Postfix
has no such lapses.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:23:10PM -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
I just setup TLS and SASL to allow sending non-local mail only by
authenticated users, and to have the entire SMTP conversation with the
client software encrypted, and wanted to make sure it's operating correctly:
The log
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:06:40AM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Victor Duchovni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can skip waiting for future occurences, the behaviour you describe
(especially on fallback relays where dead destinations are to be expected)
fits the known issue like a glove (and we
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:59:07AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
P.s. Even though policyd-weight may be old, I've heard good things about
it. We have a customer that uses it and swears by it.
It's fine, but doesn't have much that postfwd can't do. Postfwd has active
development and somewhat more
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:59:00 -0400 Victor Duchovni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All libspf2 users should read this post by Dan Kaminsky, and upgrade
libspf2 to 1.2.8 as soon as possible:
http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1263
FWIW, the Ubuntu libspf2 packages for all releases have been patched to
mouss wrote:
MrC a écrit :
[snip]
But, your entry discovered a bug in the parsing of the sasl_sender=
portion of smtpd's client= log line. The output should look like:
1 SASL authenticated relayed messages --
This may be misleading. something like claimed SASL
Victor Duchovni wrote:
It is interesting to see an MUA negotiate an anonymous session. Clearly
T-Bird did not care to ask for or verify the server certificate. Did
it require special configuration to enable this, or is this default
T-Bird behaviour?
I see the same in my logs - default setup
52 matches
Mail list logo
