If, for some reason, the files containing messages present in the incoming
directory had to be moved to a temp directory, is it possible to copy them
back to the incoming directory in order to be re-queued by Postfix?
--
Bernardo Pons
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:09:31PM +0200, Bernardo Pons wrote:
If, for some reason, the files containing messages present in the incoming
directory had to be moved to a temp directory, is it possible to copy them
back to the incoming directory in order to be re-queued by Postfix?
The details
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:09:31PM +0200, Bernardo Pons wrote:
If, for some reason, the files containing messages present in the incoming
directory had to be moved to a temp directory, is it possible to copy them
back to the incoming directory in order to be re-queued by
Well, rather than moved, all files into the incoming directory were copied
to a different folder in the same filesystem.
So the files, and thus the inodes, are different from the originals. The
filenames are preserved.
The ownership was set back to the original (user and group running Postfix)
Bernardo Pons:
Well, rather than moved, all files into the incoming directory were copied
to a different folder in the same filesystem.
So the files, and thus the inodes, are different from the originals. The
filenames are preserved.
The ownership was set back to the original (user and group
It worked!
Thank you Wietse Viktor for your help.
Great piece of software Postfix!
2013/10/9 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
Bernardo Pons:
Well, rather than moved, all files into the incoming directory were
copied
to a different folder in the same filesystem.
So the files, and thus
Hi all
I'm trying to configure postfix 2.7.1 to protect internal mailing list with
the restriction classes as per
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html#internal
Example
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
check_recipient_access
On 10/09/2013 10:03 PM, Stefano Gatto wrote:
Hi all
I'm trying to configure postfix 2.7.1 to protect internal mailing list with
the restriction classes as per
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html#internal
Example
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
ln == lists@rhsoft net li...@rhsoft.net writes:
ln show me one legitimate mail server in 2013 without a PTR
Unfortunately it is not uncommon with v6.
I've had to whitelist a number of sites over the last year where the
outoing mta added a v6 address w/o a ptr.
Mostly it appeared to be due to
Am 09.10.2013 23:54, schrieb James Cloos:
ln == lists@rhsoft net li...@rhsoft.net writes:
ln show me one legitimate mail server in 2013 without a PTR
Unfortunately it is not uncommon with v6.
because people change configurations in hurry to have ipv6
I've had to whitelist a number of
Hi,
while debugging the Google/IPv6 issue, we discovered something strange.
Our uplink provider operates caching DNS servers, and they reply with a
rather detailed Additional section when asked for MX records, but only
with cached results.
For example, if example.com has an MX record pointing to
ln == lists@rhsoft net li...@rhsoft.net writes:
ln wrong way - don't whitelist them and they will fix it
Nonsense.
Remaining subscribed to the lists in question is /vastly/ more important.
Protesting hurts me or my users, not the list admins.
The job of an MX admin is to get the legitimate
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
Most tools, mainly libc's resolver, seem to ignore the Additional
section and resolve relevant names on their owns, explicitly asking for
the RR types they are itnerested in, and that's what seems to be
appropriate. Postfix,
James Cloos:
Unfortunately it is not uncommon with v6.
I've had to whitelist a number of sites over the last year where the
outoing mta added a v6 address w/o a ptr.
Mostly it appeared to be due to new v6 routes and autoconfig surprising
the mta admins.
I wonder how this could happen, as
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
Most tools, mainly libc's resolver, seem to ignore the Additional
section and resolve relevant names on their owns, explicitly asking for
the RR types they are itnerested in, and that's what seems to be
Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
the contrary are based on false speculation.
Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any given MX?
-nik
--
# apt-assassinate --help
Usage: apt-assassinate
On 10/10/2013 01:37 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
James Cloos:
Unfortunately it is not uncommon with v6.
I've had to whitelist a number of sites over the last year where the
outoing mta added a v6 address w/o a ptr.
Mostly it appeared to be due to new v6 routes and autoconfig surprising
the mta
On 10/9/2013 3:03 PM, Stefano Gatto wrote:
Hi all
I'm trying to configure postfix 2.7.1 to protect internal mailing list with
the restriction classes as per
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html#internal
Example
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
Dominik George:
Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
the contrary are based on false speculation.
Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any given MX?
Don't shoot the messenger of bad news. Ask the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
the contrary are based on false speculation.
Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any given MX?
Patrick Lists:
On 10/10/2013 01:37 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
James Cloos:
Unfortunately it is not uncommon with v6.
I've had to whitelist a number of sites over the last year where the
outoing mta added a v6 address w/o a ptr.
Mostly it appeared to be due to new v6 routes and
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
the contrary are based on false speculation.
Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
Why does postfix sometimes not find the
The correct description is:
When both IPv4 and IPv6 support are enabled, the Postfix SMTP
client, for Postfix versions prior to 2.8, will attempt to
connect via IPv6 before attempting to use IPv4. Starting
with 2.8 protocol preference is controlled via the new
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:39:41AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
The correct description is:
When both IPv4 and IPv6 support are enabled, the Postfix SMTP
client, for Postfix versions prior to 2.8, will attempt to
connect via IPv6 before attempting to use IPv4. Starting
On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:06:09AM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
# cat /usr/local/etc/postfix-config/main/relay_clientcerts
3A:2E:AB:6A:F1:D4:32:74:C9:C6:DD:2B:8D:2A:87:97 cliff.example.org
This looks like md5, and while still largely
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 09:21:36PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
Don't forget:
main.cf:
smtpd_tls_fingerprint_digest = sha1
Does that have to be in main.cf? I added it to master.cf.
Generally, keeping settings in main.cf is better. Use master.cf
only when settings need to
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 09:21:36PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
Don't forget:
main.cf:
smtpd_tls_fingerprint_digest = sha1
Does that have to be in main.cf? I added it to master.cf.
Generally, keeping settings in main.cf is
27 matches
Mail list logo
