Re: Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 8:35 AM, phoenixsagar wrote: > > For one host certificate verification is failing randomly. I want to monitor > that particular host. > Specifically I want that depth and subject of certificate for which it is > marking certificate expired. > I have gone through pcaps but

PATCH: Postfix benchmark: bug or performance regression ?

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema: > Juliana Rodrigueiro: > > > To get rid of the 2s delays: > > > > > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > > > lmtp_connection_cache_on_demand = no > > > > > > Please let us know if that helps. Meanwhile we can develop a proper fix. > > > > And yes, it worked, that helped a lot. Although not

Re: timed out while receiving the initial server greeting when sending to CPanel exim addresses

2019-03-28 Thread Dale Harper
Thanks Noel for gently pointing out the obvious - there was in fact a non default timeout setting lurking set to 15 secs - the Cpanel exim setting is 20 secs. Removed to let postfix timeout settings sit at default. All good. Appreciate it. > On 29 Mar 2019, at 8:21 am, Noel Jones wrote: >

Re: timed out while receiving the initial server greeting when sending to CPanel exim addresses

2019-03-28 Thread Noel Jones
On 3/28/2019 5:09 PM, Dale Harper wrote: Hi All, Cpanel environments have a artifical (“tar pitting”) delay in their smtp transaction when receiving email. Cpanel’s exim config has a “delay = 20secs”. (CPanel documentation:

timed out while receiving the initial server greeting when sending to CPanel exim addresses

2019-03-28 Thread Dale Harper
Hi All, Cpanel environments have a artifical (“tar pitting”) delay in their smtp transaction when receiving email. Cpanel’s exim config has a “delay = 20secs”. (CPanel documentation: https://documentation.cpanel.net/display/78Docs/Exim+Configuration+Manager+-+Basic+Editor#ACLOptions Under -

Re: DMARC mitigation for mailing list server

2019-03-28 Thread Ralph Seichter
* Bill Cole: > Please accept my apology for wasting your time An apology is not necessary. Checking my own settings every once in a while is not something I consider a waste, and you nudged me to using c=relaxed/relaxed. -Ralph

Re: DMARC mitigation for mailing list server

2019-03-28 Thread Bill Cole
On 28 Mar 2019, at 13:09, Ralph Seichter wrote: * Bill Cole: Most recent bad signature: Subject: Re: Rspamd as milter and 'discard' action Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:08:33 +0100 Message-ID: <87wol1b4n2@ra.horus-it.com> Weird. I have just verified the raw message, using both

Re: DMARC mitigation for mailing list server

2019-03-28 Thread Ralph Seichter
* Bill Cole: > Most recent bad signature: > > Subject: Re: Rspamd as milter and 'discard' action > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 21:08:33 +0100 > Message-ID: <87wol1b4n2@ra.horus-it.com> Weird. I have just verified the raw message, using both 'dkimpy' and http://www.appmaildev.com/en/dkimfile

Re: Postfix benchmark: bug or performance regression ?

2019-03-28 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > And thank you for your thorough investigation that helped to narrow > down the root cause: under high traffic conditions, LMTP connections > are cached but never reused, therefore those idle cached connections > are exhausting server

Re: Postfix benchmark: bug or performance regression ?

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Juliana Rodrigueiro: > > To get rid of the 2s delays: > > > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > > lmtp_connection_cache_on_demand = no > > > > Please let us know if that helps. Meanwhile we can develop a proper fix. > > And yes, it worked, that helped a lot. Although not as fast as before, but now > I

Re: Postfix benchmark: bug or performance regression ?

2019-03-28 Thread Juliana Rodrigueiro
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019 20:01:49 CET Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:36:28PM +0100, Juliana Rodrigueiro wrote: > > However, during a benchmark, we realized 3.3.2 was 5 times slower than the > > version before. > > This is misleading. Postfix is not 5 times slower, your

Re: DMARC mitigation for mailing list server

2019-03-28 Thread Bill Cole
On 26 Mar 2019, at 20:16, Ralph Seichter wrote: * Bill Cole: That's a level which makes me feel pretty sure that something in the postfix-users pipeline is making an otherwise harmless change to those messages. I have not checked every single message, but I just inspected a few of my own

Re: DMARC mitigation for mailing list server

2019-03-28 Thread Bill Cole
On 27 Mar 2019, at 3:51, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 26 Mar 2019, at 14:47, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: if the mailing list doesn't modify existing headers, DKIM signatures are valid but they don't align, so DMARC policy is violated. On 26.03.19 15:40, Bill Cole wrote: No: without

Re: Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
phoenixsagar: > For one host certificate verification is failing randomly. I want to monitor > that particular host. > Specifically I want that depth and subject of certificate for which it is > marking certificate expired. > I have gone through pcaps but all certificates at that time are fine. >

Re: Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread phoenixsagar
For one host certificate verification is failing randomly. I want to monitor that particular host. Specifically I want that depth and subject of certificate for which it is marking certificate expired. I have gone through pcaps but all certificates at that time are fine. So I want debug logs

Re: Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
phoenixsagar: > I want to configure postfix such that I get log level 4 for specific ip or > domain. And for rest of the cases it should give logs of log level 1 > What I tried is : > debug_peer_level = 4 > debug_peer_list = > > In this case postfix is not providing all debug logs.(May be

Re: Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread Ansgar Wiechers
On 2019-03-28 phoenixsagar wrote: > I want to configure postfix such that I get log level 4 for specific ip or > domain. And for rest of the cases it should give logs of log level 1 > What I tried is : > debug_peer_level = 4 > debug_peer_list = > > In this case postfix is not providing all debug

Re: "Chunk exceeds message size limit"

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Peter: > On 20/03/19 21:11, Markus Sch?nhaber wrote: > > Viktor Dukhovni, 19.3.2019 20:00 +0100: > > > >> Note that, perhaps unintentionally, the treatment of "message_size_limit > >> = 0" is not documented to mean "no limit". Perhaps we should also > >> address that. > > > > I asked about that

Re: Postfix benchmark: bug or performance regression ?

2019-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema: > Juliana Rodrigueiro: > > Excerpt of maillog version > 2.11.1: > > Mar 27 14:46:50 localdomain postfix/lmtp[24750]: 6CEFF61: > > to=, orig_to=, > > relay=localdomain.com[/var/ > > imap/socket/lmtp], delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0/0.01/0, dsn=2.1.5, status=sent > > (250 2.1.5 Ok

Debug log level configuration

2019-03-28 Thread phoenixsagar
I want to configure postfix such that I get log level 4 for specific ip or domain. And for rest of the cases it should give logs of log level 1 What I tried is : debug_peer_level = 4 debug_peer_list = In this case postfix is not providing all debug logs.(May be providing log level 2 logs) I was

RE: nfs as mailq storage?

2019-03-28 Thread De Petter Mattheas
Thanks for the help john Now the fstab is working and mounting correct Fstab entry 10.7.248.45:/mnt/nfs-pool1 /mnt/nfspool1 nfs defaults 0 0 Rights on the freenas nfs share User root Group wheel Now I have the problem that my postfix does not start any more due to user rights error.