Thanks for everyone
It's working after few hour..
My ISP may have blocked port 25 outbound
It' working well now
Sorry for answer so late, because of busy with my business
Thanks again
TOM
2014-02-21 11:53 GMT+08:00 Eric Kimminau :
> 1) Postfix has NO impact on telnet. If you cannot telnet outbo
--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:29 PM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
For all "mumble_maps" parameters and for any given lookup key, the
tables listed are searched in order, and the first match terminates
the search.
Excellent, thanks Viktor for confirming!
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mo
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:25PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Fiddling with how Zimbra sets some variables that get pushed to
> postfix, and trying to determine if transport_maps is order
> dependent.
>
> I.e., are these equivalent:
>
> transport_maps =
> lmdb:/opt/zimbra/conf/pos
Am 26.02.2014 23:59, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> Fiddling with how Zimbra sets some variables that get pushed to postfix, and
> trying to determine if transport_maps
> is order dependent.
>
> I.e., are these equivalent:
>
> transport_maps = lmdb:/opt/zimbra/conf/postfix/postfix_discard_doma
Fiddling with how Zimbra sets some variables that get pushed to postfix,
and trying to determine if transport_maps is order dependent.
I.e., are these equivalent:
transport_maps = lmdb:/opt/zimbra/conf/postfix/postfix_discard_domains,
proxy:ldap:/opt/zimbra/conf/ldap-transport.cf
transport_m
On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:44 AM, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> Hello (or should that be EHLO? :))
>
> It has been a while since I've had a need to change my Postfix
> configuration, so I'm a bit rusty. I have searched, checked the
> configuration, etc. No luck yet.
>
> Is it possible to get Postfix to log
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:32:09PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> Well, I sent them the two responses I got here (from rob0 and
> Victor), and, in addition to what I think is the real reason,
> here is what they came back with:
>
> >domains are more likely to go down do to poor DNSSEC
> >administ
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:14:10PM +0100, Andreas Schulze wrote:
> >But wait, there is more
>
> does not sound like an easy job.
The difficult parts are not in marking the queue file.
> just an idea: if the timestamp of a queuefile is relevant, could a
> changed time
> of a queuefile be int
wietse:
But wait, there is more
does not sound like an easy job.
just an idea: if the timestamp of a queuefile is relevant, could a
changed time
of a queuefile be interpreted as "bounce immediately" ?
for example timestamp to a fixed date near 1.1.1970
Andreas
Viktor Dukhovni:
> To bounce a message, the queue file is locked, bounce log entries
> are written for each remaining recipient, and the message is moved
> to the new queue. No unsafe (non-atomic) changes are made to the
> original queue file.
If this logfile update bypasses the queue manager or
Hello,
Do we have any users of Postfix and DSpam here? If so, can you write
me privately? I'm having a few issues fine tuning my configuration.
I'm running FC20, Postfix 2.10, and DSpam 3.10. Authentication is done
via a Mysql database. I'm using DSpam as a content filter, this part
is working fi
On 2/26/2014 2:34 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Noel Jones:
>> I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
>> whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
>> bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
>> on the next queue run without
Noel Jones:
> I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
> whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
> bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
> on the next queue run without much new code?
Indeed, not, because you can't c
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> I expect this doesn't work the way I think, but what about pointing
> whatever the queue file uses for the content filter flag to the
> bounce or error transport? Wouldn't that cause the message to bounce
> on the next queue run without
On 2/26/2014 9:53 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Noel Jones:
>> On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
>>> wietse:
>>>
I don't know what people are asking for:
1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
>>>
>>> option 1 (for me)
On 2/25/2014 10:32 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
My domains are (or will be when the transfer completes) signed with
NSEC3. RFC 5155 (NSEC3) was published in 2008. The root zone was
signed around 2010. DNSSEC is up and running.
Well, I sent them the two responses I got here (from rob0 and Victor
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:40:38PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> that's why I wanted to make clear if the limitation is a
> strong technical one or "only" highly recommended
Strongly recommended for all but the most determined DIY users who
are at the mercy of their own skills and attention to
Am 26.02.2014 17:30, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>> no - the two dns servers are already in the LAN and working
>>
>> they are trusted and if i do not trust my own LAN i also can
>> not trust a forwarder running on 127.0.0.1 asking them
>
> Without an anti-spoofing firewall, remote name servers may b
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:42:29AM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> > If the LAN housing the MTAs and multiple caching nameservers is
> > physically secure and well firewalled, you could potentially rely
> > on that physical security and firewall anti-spoofing rules.
>
> that is the point: if i d
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I thought there might be people here that would find this of interest:
>
> http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/postfix-architecture-overview/
Thanks. A quick correction. showq(8) does not IIRC communicate
with the queue m
Noel Jones:
> On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
> > wietse:
> >
> >> I don't know what people are asking for:
> >> 1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
> >> 2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
> >
> > option 1 (for me)
> >
> > in case of trouble I do
> > - mail
I thought there might be people here that would find this of interest:
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/postfix-architecture-overview/
Scott K
On 2/26/2014 12:41 AM, Andreas Schulze wrote:
>
> wietse:
>
>> I don't know what people are asking for:
>> 1 - Bounce all recipients of one specific queue file
>> 2 - Bouncing only specific recipients
>
> option 1 (for me)
>
> in case of trouble I do
> - mailq for visual overview
> - pfqg
Zitat von li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 26.02.2014 12:48, schrieb Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
is by far the simplest configuration.
Is or will this be "enforced" by Postfix in some way for DANE?
Postfix does not parse /etc/re
Am 26.02.2014 12:57, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>> Am 26.02.2014 12:48, schrieb Wietse Venema:
>>> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
> is by far the simplest configuration.
Is or will this be "enforced" by Pos
li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 26.02.2014 12:48, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> >>> Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
> >>> is by far the simplest configuration.
> >>
> >> Is or will this be "enforced" by Postfix in some way for DANE?
> >
> > Postfix does
Ron Scott-Adams:
> Telnet sessions in which I use RCPT TO:r...@joab.tohuw.net fail
> with "550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected:
> User unknown in local recipient table?
Look at output from:
postconf local_recipient_maps
> What have I forgotten to do?
There is no "ron" found in those
Am 26.02.2014 12:48, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
>>> Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
>>> is by far the simplest configuration.
>>
>> Is or will this be "enforced" by Postfix in some way for DANE?
>
> Postfix does not parse /etc/resolv.conf
so c
Zitat von wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
> is by far the simplest configuration.
Is or will this be "enforced" by Postfix in some way for DANE?
Postfix does not parse /etc/resolv.conf.
Wietse
Thanks!
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > Yes, of course. In practice, for most users, the local resolver
> > is by far the simplest configuration.
>
> Is or will this be "enforced" by Postfix in some way for DANE?
Postfix does not parse /etc/resolv.conf.
Wietse
Zitat von Viktor Dukhovni :
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:43:25AM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> The local resolver can have the resolvers on the LAN configured as
> forwarders, but you need the local stub resolver. No reason not to have
> one, really, especially on a busy mail server.
However you
Am 26.02.2014 07:33, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:54:37AM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>>> The local resolver can have the resolvers on the LAN configured as
>>> forwarders, but you need the local stub resolver. No reason not to have
>>> one, really, especially on
Hi, i've configured my postifx to manage different location (server)
with the same domain.
I've configured 4 postfix mx record one for every site (location/server).
My configuration is like this:
example.com in virtual_alias_domains
$myhostname in mydestination or virtual_mailbox_domains
/etc/p
Am 26.02.2014 02:25, schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
> On 26 Feb 2014, at 00:54, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2014 00:46, schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
>>> On 26 Feb 2014, at 00:29, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 25.02.2014 17:41, schrieb Dirk Stöcker:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:44:07AM -0500, Ron Scott-Adams wrote:
>
> I?ve updated a working user on this test server from r...@tohuw.net to
> r...@joab.tohuw.net. Under the previous address, I could successfully
> complete a telnet session and convey mail for r...@tohuw.net to the local MTA.
>
On 26 Feb 2014, at 07:46, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:43:25AM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
>
>>> The local resolver can have the resolvers on the LAN configured as
>>> forwarders, but you need the local stub resolver. No reason not to have
>>> one, really, especially on a
36 matches
Mail list logo
