wietse:
Dammit, I want to hear from people who expect to have problems
or not.
OK, I don't expect problems for /my/ systems
because I already explicit set 'append_dot_mydomain = no'.
Andreas
Im having a hard time copying something I did in qmail (using some
random patch).
Ive got four postfix instances, two used exclusively for submission
(all outbound email from us), two as mxers (all inbound email,
primary then forwards to an old qmail/vpopmail setup).
Im looking to have a list of
Am 23.09.2014 um 09:28 schrieb CSS:
Im having a hard time copying something I did in qmail (using some
random patch).
Ive got four postfix instances, two used exclusively for submission
(all outbound email from us), two as mxers (all inbound email,
primary then forwards to an old
Hello,
We have some very high load on our Internet connection.
After checking de CheckPoint firewall Log, I see some very big (more
than 1Go) smtp transfers from our Postfix gateway.
But I have this parameter message_size_limit = 13631488 and when I try
to send a bigger mail I am blocked.
Am 22.09.2014 um 22:11 schrieb Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Subin K S:
hi,
I've compiled and installed postfix 2.11 on Debian7, from source. Now when
I try to send an email using to an extrernal address from teh command line
it errs out as follows:
Sep 22 15:44:57 server1
Wietse Venema writes:
Dammit, I want to hear from people who expect to have problems
or not.
I don't expect problems on our systems because we also have set
append_dot_mydomain to no.
Furthermore, one of the great things about Postfix is its documentation, and
if the change is mentioned
Am 23.09.2014 um 01:33 schrieb Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:41:00AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
This time PLEASE refrain from sidetracking the discussion. I want
to know what will break when the default changes, if that is not
too much to
wietse:
This is a minimal patch relative to the confirm_delay_cleared patch.
This suppresses the notification when the user requests NOTIFY=FAILURE,
or any NOTIFY features that do not include DELAY.
I checked the cases mentioned here:
http://marc.info/?l=postfix-usersm=141044783906935
and
I'm rebuilding 20140922 20140907 like this:
CCARGS=-DUSE_TLS -DHAS_PCRE -DHAS_CDB -DHAS_LDAP \
AUXLIBS=-lssl -lcrypto -lnsl \
AUXLIBS_CDB=-lcdb \
AUXLIBS_PCRE=-lpcre \
AUXLIBS_LDAP=-lldap -llber \
make makefiles shared=yes dynamicmaps=yes
make
While 20140907 ist building OK, I'm getting an
Hello,
I just find a transfer greater than 4Go form our postfix to the server
xxx.com in maillog I have this:
Sep 23 11:29:42 vador postfix/smtp[4194]: 832AF60511: to=x,
relay=xxx.com[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]:25, delay=63197,
delays=63191/0.43/5.1/0.19, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok
On 09/23/2014 11:41 PM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Sep 23 11:29:42 vador postfix/smtp[4194]: 832AF60511: to=x,
relay=xxx.com[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]:25, delay=63197,
delays=63191/0.43/5.1/0.19, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok 1411464583 qp
1725)
Sep 23 11:29:42 vador postfix/smtp[4193]:
Hello Peter,
Thank you for your reply, I thought this is multiple messages in a
single connection, but greater than 4GB... :( ?
Also how can a decode de delays ?
Best regards.
Francis
On 09/23/2014 01:49 PM, Peter wrote:
On 09/23/2014 11:41 PM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Sep 23 11:29:42 vador
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Francis SOUYRI francis.sou...@apec.fr wrote:
Hi,
After checking de CheckPoint firewall Log, I see some very big (more than
1Go) smtp transfers from our Postfix gateway.
did you carefully check your logs for, example, spam via smtp auth?
btw: install
A. Schulze:
wietse:
This is a minimal patch relative to the confirm_delay_cleared patch.
This suppresses the notification when the user requests NOTIFY=FAILURE,
or any NOTIFY features that do not include DELAY.
I checked the cases mentioned here:
Wietse Venema:
A. Schulze:
wietse:
This is a minimal patch relative to the confirm_delay_cleared patch.
This suppresses the notification when the user requests NOTIFY=FAILURE,
or any NOTIFY features that do not include DELAY.
I checked the cases mentioned here:
On 9/23/2014 6:56 AM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Hello Peter,
Thank you for your reply, I thought this is multiple messages in a
single connection, but greater than 4GB... :( ?
Also how can a decode de delays ?
from the docs:
delays=a/b/c/d where a=time before queue manager, including
message
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Christian R??ner wrote:
Debian turns on chroot in master.cf.
See http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#no_chroot for turning
it off.
Not sure, if this depends on his setup, as he compiled it from source.
Installs from source don't clobber
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 01:33:07PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
While 20140907 ist building OK, I'm getting an error with 20140922 (and
20140921, just tried that as well):
...
[src/postfix]
make: Nothing to be done for update'.
[src/fsstone]
gcc -Wmissing-prototypes -Wformat
Ralf Hildebrandt:
../../lib/libpostfix-util.so: undefined reference to dict_db_cache_size'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
I'll roll out another snapshot. This is something that does not happen
on every platform and with every build option (shared versus plugin
versus static).
Viktor Dukhovni:
The handling of the Berkeley DB and LMDB size parameters is a bit
ad-hoc. The patch below moves all the logic into libutil. Wietse
may have a different approach.
Yes. My approach is supposed to work for dynamically-loaded
database clients.
Wietse
Wietse Venema:
Viktor Dukhovni:
The handling of the Berkeley DB and LMDB size parameters is a bit
ad-hoc. The patch below moves all the logic into libutil. Wietse
may have a different approach.
Yes. My approach is supposed to work for dynamically-loaded
database clients.
Can you try
Hi,
I read the RELEASE_NOTES and tried to modiy one milter. But I get warnings in
the logs:
Sep 23 21:08:46 mx postfix/smtpd[31857]: warning: invalid transport name: {inet
in Milter service: {inet:[::1]:30071
Sep 23 21:08:46 mx postfix/smtpd[31857]: warning: Milter service needs
Christian R??ner:
In the RELEASE_NOTES:
- Milter clients and policy clients with non-default settings:
smtpd_milters = {inet:host:port, timeout=xxx, default_action=yyy}, ?
How is that meant?
It is meant as follows:
Begin quote:
+---
|IT IS EXPECTED that usability can be
Sanity check please:
I have a relay machine: relay.domain1.com
And a client: client.domain2.com
I'd like to filter (silently discard) messages at the relay machine from
going to any account on the client machine if the From: address is:
groupsupda...@yahoogroups.com
Am 23.09.2014 um 21:27 schrieb Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Christian R??ner:
In the RELEASE_NOTES:
- Milter clients and policy clients with non-default settings:
smtpd_milters = {inet:host:port, timeout=xxx, default_action=yyy}, ?
How is that meant?
It is meant as follows:
If you still want help, post actual technical details:
1) non-verbose logging,
2) the postconf -n for the configuration that produced that logging
I also recommend http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
Then, someone may be able to see what mistake you are making.
Otherwise,
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:29 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
My thought: there are popular distros that have set this explicitly
to no for years, and yet we get very few questions here where the
artificial no setting causes a problem. So in a sense it's already
been tested for us.
Sort
i try to explain the setup first:
* inbound-only gateway
* spamassassin as milter
* different target servers as smtp-transports
all, is working perect so far
if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
well, i would like to deliver that
On 9/23/2014 2:31 PM, Michael Fox wrote:
Sanity check please:
I have a relay machine: relay.domain1.com
And a client: client.domain2.com
I’d like to filter (silently discard) messages at the relay machine
from going to any account on the client machine if the From: address
Wietse:
If you still want help, post actual technical details:
1) non-verbose logging,
2) the postconf -n for the configuration that produced that logging,
3) the content of the email message that produced that logging,
3) any commands that you type in order to produce that logging,
4)
li...@rhsoft.net:
if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
well, i would like to deliver that messages unchanged but send a
copy to a special, full qualified address for inspection to train
a hand-maintained bayse with pretty clear
Am 23.09.2014 um 23:24 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
well, i would like to deliver that messages unchanged but send a
copy to a special, full qualified address for inspection to
What you can do is create a restriction class to check the sender
and the recipient, and reject the message if both match. The
general procedure is outlined here, with some examples similar to
what you're asking:
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
Alternately, you can
We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this RFC
within Postfix for 2.12 (or later).
Thanks!
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Server Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
Zimbra :: the
On 09/24/2014 08:12 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
well, i would like to deliver that messages unchanged but send a
copy to a special, full qualified address
I would recommend using a delivery
The requsted information simply does not exit.
3. Any text.
4. No commands run, just emails are sent / received.
5. Commands typed: the word spam in the subject field. No commands from any
scripts are run.
6. No datafiles used.
Original message
Subject: Re: header checks
On September 24, 2014 6:49:22 AM Webmaster webmas...@lshipping.info wrote:
The requsted information simply does not exit.
Then the problem does not exit
37 matches
Mail list logo
