Hi,
Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
earlier.
If there isn't a nice howto already, I guess I can figure this out myself -
bonding is easy, if this is the prefered solution for a postfix
* Selcuk Yazar selcuk.ya...@gmail.com:
Hi,
We have a rule on header checks file like this;
/^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT Bad Header 92
but last week our staff sen an email an it's subject is
Subject: =?utf-8?B?QsSwWSBNRVNMRUsgRVTEsMSexLAgSEFGVEEgNQ==
thats why this mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2012 09:26 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Improve the header checks e.g. by requiring a word boundary-
Although I agree, as encoded headers are becoming common place
nowadays, decoding would be a nice enhancement to the header checking
code.
On 3/12/2012 2:28 AM, Michael Maymann wrote:
Hi,
Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
earlier.
I dunno if there is a BCP covering smtp submission/relay server load
balancing/fail over.
Hi all,
I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
/etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing e mail system? end marker
I have attached my /etc/postfix/bounce.cf file... can anyone see a
problem with it?
My system
On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Selcuk Yazar wrote:
Hi,
We have a rule on header checks file like this;
/^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT Bad Header 92
but last week our staff sen an email an it's subject is
Subject: =?utf-8?B?QsSwWSBNRVNMRUsgRVTEsMSexLAgSEFGVEEgNQ==
thats why
we are turks and we hate sex word :P
thank you all.
selcuk.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Larry Stone lston...@stonejongleux.comwrote:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Selcuk Yazar wrote:
Hi,
We have a rule on header checks file like this;
/^Subject:.*sex/ REJECT Bad
Hi All Postfix Users,
I've one question with one advanced Postfix configuration.
My architecture:
2 Frontal Server MX01 (Prio 10) and MX02 (Prio 20) with Postfix and Dovecot.
1 Backend Server FILTERGW with Postfix and SpamAssassin and Amavis.
When one mail come to MX01, I check with MySQL if
Charles Marcus:
Hi all,
I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
/etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing e mail system? end marker
I have attached my /etc/postfix/bounce.cf file... can anyone see a
On 2012-03-12 9:44 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Charles Marcus:
I am getting the following error whenever a bounce is generated:
Mar 12 06:20:59 myhost postfix/bounce[24765]: warning:
/etc/postfix/bounce.cf, line 108: missing e mail system? end marker
I have attached my
On 2012-03-12 10:53 AM, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
Well... I just opened it in notepad++ to check, and I did indeed see
CRLF at the end of every line (and for the blank lines)... so, if you
didn't see them in the one that was attached, I guess something stripped
them out?
I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to resolve this.
One of my clients just switched from webroot's EMail SaaS (antispam
service) to Postini, and they do use postini (as they did webroot) for
outbound relaying/filtering.
This change has broken mail forwarding via
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:10:30PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to resolve this.
I get the following error in the logs (u...@example.com is a valid
user on our system):
Mar 12 02:48:29 myhost postfix-25/smtpd[25932]: C0F52760CFF:
On 3/12/2012 11:10 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I hope someone here who has used Postini can suggest a way to
resolve this.
One of my clients just switched from webroot's EMail SaaS (antispam
service) to Postini, and they do use postini (as they did webroot)
for outbound relaying/filtering.
Hello Folks,
I've been the admin of a site that uses Postfix with Dovecot on RedHat
since, oh, gosh, maybe 1996? It's been a long time. I've never built it
from source, though, just used the rpms (and I wonder if maybe that's my
problem now). It just works, is reliable, and lets me be a
Hello.
I've setup a null client (from the postfix doc) to use a sender rewrite with
sender_canonical_maps to send mail from serv...@foo.bar through a mailgateway.
And before finishing of the mailgateway config, I got a bounce back. So how can
I fix the null client to accept but drop all
Am 12.03.2012 18:14, schrieb Richard Troy:
much stuff
please describe you problem a little shorter
with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in dovecot.conf is
working like a charme, if i should guess you missed
the mode/owner/group
# configure backend for postfix sasl-auth
service auth {
Richard Troy:
My problem statement is simply, it should be working, but doesn't, and I
don't get any announcement of auth when testing connections to Postfix
as per directions here:
...
smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
smtpd_sasl_path = private/auth
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
Herr Harald,
please describe you problem a little shorter
Ja, klein.
with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in dovecot.conf is
Using 1.2.8.
the mode/owner/group
No, not missed, however:
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
My code reads:
path = /var/spool/postfix/private/auth
Am 12.03.2012 18:44, schrieb Richard Troy:
with dovecot 2.x the follwoing in dovecot.conf is
Using 1.2.8
this is really old
the mode/owner/group
No, not missed, however:
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
My code reads:
path = /var/spool/postfix/private/auth
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Richard Troy wrote:
My problem statement is simply, it should be working, but doesn't, and I
don't get any announcement of auth when testing connections to Postfix
as per directions here:
http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_test
I haven't seen any followups
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
Output from the postconf -n command is preferred here. If this
output differs from what you expect, then that it a possible
contributor to the problem.
Yes, already checked: high fidelity, no discrepancies.
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Larry Stone wrote:
I haven't seen any followups with the request postconf -n output but:
Um, nobody asked for it; Wietse only said it was preferred over sharing
the values individually. -smile- However, I'll take your statement as an
implicit request - it's below.
It's
Richard Troy:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
Output from the postconf -n command is preferred here. If this
output differs from what you expect, then that it a possible
contributor to the problem.
Yes, already checked: high fidelity, no discrepancies.
You're supposed to
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Larry Stone wrote:
It's not clear if you're trying to do this on port 25 or port 587
(submission).
I'd be keen to know how I can, if I should, offload port 25; as I
indicated I'm using port 25 because I didn't stumble over any other course
of action. Please feel
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
You're supposed to share the result, not say looks correct. As
the reporter of a problem, you are in the worst position to say
that things are correct, because if you were able to see your
mistake, then you would not be posting on this mailing list
On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
The documentation found here:
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html
claims (intimates) that it's not possible to run a site on a self-signed
certificate, however, there's ZERO budget for a signed certificate, so
unless I can get one for ten
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Richard Troy wrote:
...None of the reject_* things seemed to apply, but then, well, CLEARLY
at least one of them did... Sure would be nice if the log contained the
reason for rejection, however, I'm not complaining; this community has
provided me with GREAT software for a
On 3/12/2012 1:46 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
I'd be keen to know how I can, if I should, offload port 25; as I
indicated I'm using port 25 because I didn't stumble over any other course
of action. Please feel free to point me at what I _should_ be doing!
-smile-
...I'd still like to know
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 3/12/2012 2:28 AM, Michael Maymann wrote:
Hi,
Stan: My question is not how I setup the solution, but how I *BEST* (best
practice) setup the loadshared/failover postfix solution I described
earlier.
I dunno if there is a BCP covering smtp submission/relay server load
Noel,
this is not a big deal to me, but here's where I became concerned about
self-signed certs:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Noel Jones wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
The documentation found here:
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html
claims (intimates) that it's not
Kris Deugau:
We found that DNS-based round-robin strategies didn't actually balance
the load very well.
This looks like the same problem that was found (and solved) with
Postfix outbound connection caching; if a destination host became
slow for whatever reason, it became a fatal attractor for
There is one correction, in-line.
Kris Deugau:
We found that DNS-based round-robin strategies didn't actually balance
the load very well.
This looks like the same problem that was found (and solved) with
Postfix outbound connection caching; if a destination host became
slow for
On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
Noel,
this is not a big deal to me, but here's where I became concerned about
self-signed certs:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Noel Jones wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Troy wrote:
The documentation found here:
That worked! Thank you very much!
From: Mailinglist mailingl...@theflux.net
To: Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com
Cc: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net; postfix-users@postfix.org
postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:17 PM
Subject: Re:
Wietse et al.
With the arrival of postscreen, but also before I find myself repeatedly
changing the defaults for the 'submission' service in master.cf. I believe the
changes I apply are not rooted in my local mail policies, but of general
nature.
Now that submission has become more popular I'd
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:15:01PM -0700, Richard Troy wrote:
Public Internet MX hosts without certificates signed by a reputable CA
must generate, and be prepared to present to most clients, a self-signed
or private-CA signed certificate. The remote SMTP client will generally
not be able to
37 matches
Mail list logo
