Hi guys,
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
Regards,
Jarek
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
log message pertains.
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
log message pertains.
Thank
Quoting Jaroslaw Grzabel ja...@meil.me:
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
Magnus B?ck:
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging before it even knows to which domain a
log message pertains.
Besides, one message may
Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL:
Hi All,
Because of a crashed exchange server we need to queue messages longer on
our smarthost then usual.
I want to increase the time messages are queued to at least 2 weeks...
Is changing the 'maximal_queue_lifetime' in main.cf sufficient to
Stan,
Thanks for the reply and showing me a way.
Can you elaborate on your solution ?
Some of my doubts arise from :
I started my own local block lists
implemented in various Postfix access tables. It has been very
effective, especially against snowshoe spammers.
Zitat von Kammen van, Marco, Springer SBM NL marco.vankam...@springer.com:
Hi All,
Because of a crashed exchange server we need to queue messages longer on
our smarthost then usual.
I want to increase the time messages are queued to at least 2 weeks...
Is changing the
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 10:51 +, Jaroslaw Grzabel wrote:
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Mon, November 16, 2009 10:58 am, Jaroslaw Grzabel said:
Is there any way to configure postfix to create separate log file for
every domain it keeps ?
No. Postfix needs to start logging
Hi all,
Someo of my mail destinations failing, due to unable to find mx,
However when i DIG i see the mx record, but has a typo ( the remote needs to
fix thier dns )
; DiG 9.3.2 @localhost eurocommerce.ie MX ; (2 servers found) ;;
global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER-
Quoting Laurence Moughan laurence.moug...@aerlingus.com:
Hi all,
Someo of my mail destinations failing, due to unable to find mx,
However when i DIG i see the mx record, but has a typo ( the remote
needs to fix thier dns )
My postfix fails to find an mx
(Host or domain name not found.
ram wrote:
You can write a parser and dump into a database.
Give every domain a UI to access the database. That is much better.
Thanks
Ram
PS:
The parser may not be so neat because postfix unfortunately does not
log in sender , recipient , sent and size on a single line
Hi,
OK, let's
Thanks Eero,
But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix be able to
resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are pointing at same ns )
Thanks
Laurence
Eero Volotinen eero.voloti...@iki.fi 16/11/09 14:16:51
Quoting Laurence Moughan
Quoting Laurence Moughan laurence.moug...@aerlingus.com:
Thanks Eero,
But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix
be able to resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are
pointing at same ns )
No, ask dns admin to fix that dns zone.
--
Eero
On Monday 16 November 2009 14:27:19 Eero Volotinen wrote:
Quoting Laurence Moughan laurence.moug...@aerlingus.com:
Thanks Eero,
But im concerned that more will fail in future - should my postfix
be able to resolve this ( the groupwise system can and both are
pointing at same ns )
No,
Possibly make sense for DNS servers to reject such records? I have seen a
proliferation of same, most of which were cut and paste from Google's web
page.
Sounds like very poor dns management, maybe you can change dns service
provider?
--
Eero
On Monday 16 November 2009 15:08:08 Eero Volotinen wrote:
Possibly make sense for DNS servers to reject such records? I have seen a
proliferation of same, most of which were cut and paste from Google's web
page.
Sounds like very poor dns management, maybe you can change dns service
Sharma, Ashish put forth on 11/16/2009 6:23 AM:
How were you able to identify that a particular IP/IP's are the source of
spam attack on your mail server?
A trap and a Mark I eyeball, Senderbase reputation data, examining rDNS
within a netblock, etc.
After identifying that a particular
Helo,
I would like that authentified users and users from my network could send email
to wrong adresses because it could be worse to find a wrong address if the mail
is rejected at the smtp connection.
# postconf -n
address_verify_sender = verify_addr...@uclouvain.be
alias_database =
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/trivial-rewrite
Dhiraj Chatpar wrote:
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
Dhiraj Chatpar wrote:
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Nov 16 13:48:35 mail postfix/master[4145]: warning: process
Le 16 nov. 2009 à 19:46, Pascal Maes a écrit :
Helo,
I would like that authentified users and users from my network could send
email to wrong adresses because it could be worse to find a wrong address if
the mail is rejected at the smtp connection.
# postconf -n
address_verify_sender
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connection.
But if
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp connection.
But if
Dhiraj Chatpar:
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Use postconf -m to see what types of map are supported.
Wietse
Hi Mr. Wietse,
I using Centos now.. and this is the output
[r...@lsdinkindia ~]# postconf -m
btree
cidr
environ
hash
nis
proxy
regexp
static
unix
It does not show tcp. How do i get the tcp activated on this centos machine
as it alwayz used to be there on my ubuntu machine by default?
Rgds
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the mail during the smtp
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged
address vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged
address vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 02:56:08PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Dhiraj Chatpar:
HI,
I am getting this error when i am trying to connect my postfix
via transport_maps = tcp:localhost:2525
Nov 16 13:48:34 mail postfix/trivial-rewrite[4403]: fatal: unsupported
dictionary type: tcp
Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if
the address is invalid,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:53:14PM -0700, Jim Lang wrote:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if the
address is invalid, postix rejects the
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Jim Lang pisze:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the
Jaroslaw Grzabel schrieb:
Jim Lang pisze:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang post...@guscreek.com wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
This page (http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html)
looks like it describes part of your problem. Could be the solution
Regards
tobi
I had had a lot of troubles with verification database. For example...
new customer is added to SMTP relay, changed MX record to point my
Jim Lang:
But if mycli...@otherserver.com can for whatever reason not be
delivered, otherserver.com does what it is supposed to do and
rejects the mail during the smtp connection, which causes postfix
to send out a non-delivery report to vic...@randomdomain.com --
backscatter.
Is
I get the impression everyone's barking up the wrong tree. Not
surprising, given that the tcp table type is documented thusly: This
protocol is not available in the stable Postfix release.
2009/11/17 Dhiraj Chatpar dchat...@gmail.com:
I using Centos now.. and this is the output
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:05:04AM +1100, Barney Desmond wrote:
I get the impression everyone's barking up the wrong tree. Not
surprising, given that the tcp table type is documented thusly: This
protocol is not available in the stable Postfix release.
Your feeling is probably in error. The
Wietse Venema wrote:
Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what
would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files,
or in a mail distribution list).
Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying addresses
in .forward files?
For list
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 01:55:46PM +, Laurence Moughan wrote:
eurocommerce.ie. 3151 IN MX 10 cluster8.eu.messagelabs.com.
eurocommerce.ie. 3151 IN MX 20 cluster8a.eu.messagelabs.com\032.
See the (\032) trailing commas on the line containing the mx also
seem to fail me.
The MX records
Miles Fidelman:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Recipient verification does not expand a local alias (imagine what
would have to be done to verify with addresses in .forward files,
or in a mail distribution list).
Maybe I'm dense, but what would be the problem with verifying addresses
in
Folks,
it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding of Jim's setup
and situation.
Clearly, you are *NOT* doing recipient verification, or
myotherserver.com would not be rejecting it. Never accept mail which
cannot be delivered.
What he describes is that the final destination -
Postfix versions 2.3 and later skip a DNS record with a bad name.
Unsupported Postfix versions pretend that the lookup failed when
the result is invalid.
Wietse
47 matches
Mail list logo
