Am 16.01.2023 um 00:53 schrieb Wietse Venema:
What is the name for uid 109?
Wietse
postfix:x:109:115::/var/spool/postfix:/bin/false
Debian-exim:x:104:109::/var/spool/exim4:/bin/false
# id 109
uid=109(postfix) gid=115(postfix)
On 16/01/23 11:06, Charles Sprickman wrote:
OP here - just noting that's not what I was after. Just the hop before the
server (ie: the MUA).
The premise is the same, craft a PCRE expression that matches what you
want and use the REPLACE action.
Peter
Wietse Venema skrev den 2023-01-15 23:14:
Benny Pedersen:
Wietse Venema skrev den 2023-01-15 22:09:
> Benny Pedersen:
>> >> Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
>> >> btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get
>> >> exclusive lock: Resource temporarily
Maurizio Caloro:
> Hello
>
> Please i need your attention, when i send any mail, i have new this:
> ??? >Jan 16 00:20:02 nmail postfix/pickup[18919]: 39E574367B: uid=109
> from=<*postfix*>
>
> i dont found the issue, Can you lure me on the right track
What is the name for uid 109?
Hello
Please i need your attention, when i send any mail, i have new this:
>Jan 16 00:20:02 nmail postfix/pickup[18919]: 39E574367B: uid=109
from=<*postfix*>
i dont found the issue, Can you lure me on the right track
postfix 3.4.23
debian 10.13
--
Jan 16 00:20:02 nmail opendkim[18925]:
Benny Pedersen:
> Wietse Venema skrev den 2023-01-15 22:09:
> > Benny Pedersen:
> >> >> Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
> >> >> btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get
> >> >> exclusive lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
> >> >
> >> > You can't
> On Jan 15, 2023, at 12:13 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> On 15/01/23 17:34, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> The typical user who wants to lightly censor Received lines is not
>> trying to hide a specific IP address, by far the more common need
>> is to prune IP addresses from received headers add by a
On 15/01/2023 21:21, Gerben Wierda wrote:
On 15 Jan 2023, at 22:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
It would resolve the exclusive lock. However, it make no sense to
have two postscreen services on the same physical machine exposed
to clients on the internet.
Not in stable production, agreed.
But
Wietse Venema skrev den 2023-01-15 22:09:
Benny Pedersen:
>> Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
>> btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get
>> exclusive lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
>
> You can't have two postscreen service instances share
> On 15 Jan 2023, at 22:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> It would resolve the exclusive lock. However, it make no sense to
> have two postscreen services on the same physical machine exposed
> to clients on the internet.
Not in stable production, agreed.
But it brings me quick changes of my
Actually, one postfix is running on Linux and requires lmdb: the other is
running on macOS and requires btree:
This works on Linux:
smtp inet n - n - 1 postscreen
991 inet n - n - 1 postscreen
-o
Benny Pedersen:
> >> Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
> >> btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get
> >> exclusive lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
> >
> > You can't have two postscreen service instances share that cache.
>
> will change from
Wietse Venema skrev den 2023-01-15 20:00:
Gerben Wierda:
For some reason, one of my postfix servers says this:
Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get
exclusive lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
Jan 15
Gerben Wierda skrev den 2023-01-15 19:50:
i can do top post aswell :)
change btree to lmdb will imho solve it
Let me guess: my two postscreen instances side by side on different
ports?
G
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Jan 2023, at 19:26, Gerben Wierda
wrote:
For some reason, one of my
Gerben Wierda:
> For some reason, one of my postfix servers says this:
>
> Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
> btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get exclusive
> lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
> Jan 15 19:18:31 mail postfix/master[658]:
Gerben Wierda:
> The only minor thing left is that postscreen keeps logging the
> health check attempts as such:
>
> Jan 15 17:20:09 snape postfix/postscreen[277]: warning: haproxy read: EOF
Postfix should not simply ignore such errors. How would Postfix
distinguish this from haproxy crashing or
Let me guess: my two postscreen instances side by side on different ports?GSent from my iPhoneOn 15 Jan 2023, at 19:26, Gerben Wierda wrote:For some reason, one of my postfix servers says this:Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
For some reason, one of my postfix servers says this:
Jan 15 19:18:30 mail postfix/postscreen[1057]: fatal:
btree:/opt/local/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache: unable to get exclusive
lock: Resource temporarily unavailable
Jan 15 19:18:31 mail postfix/master[658]: warning: process
> On 15 Jan 2023, at 17:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> In that case, use two SMTP services, one that is proxied and one
> that is not.
Yes, in the meantime I had gathered that that was the obvious solution (should
have realised that earlier).
So, I added this in master.cf:
smtp inet n
Gerben Wierda:
> > On 15 Jan 2023, at 15:47, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > "The name of the proxy protocol used by a before-postscreen proxy agent."
>
> That still doesn't tell you what the effect is of entering a value
> for that setting while the traffic is not coming from a proxy.
> Normally,
It's practically not possible to support both with and without haproxy
within postfix within one connection. The reason is that postfix
receives plain bytes with the TCP protocol. The interpretation of these
bytes can only be done by defining the protocol underneath. When you set
the protocol
> On 15 Jan 2023, at 15:47, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> "The name of the proxy protocol used by a before-postscreen proxy agent."
That still doesn't tell you what the effect is of entering a value for that
setting while the traffic is not coming from a proxy. Normally, when you enter
config data
Gerben Wierda:
> Unambiguous would be for instance: "The name of the proxy protocol.
> This is required when you use a before-postscreen proxy agent "
Existing text: "The name of the proxy protocol used by an optional
before-postscreen proxy agent."
In that context, the name is not optional. The
> On 15 Jan 2023, at 02:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 01:47:10AM +0100, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
>> I am looking at putting HAproxy between the internet and my two inside
>> postfix MTA's
>
> Is there a good reason to do that? If not, don't.
Agreed. Sadly there is in
What I'm not clear about is what happens when the mail is sent onwards
by the 'smarthost' at Gandi. Does it change the envelope sender to
Send an email to yourself and have a look at the headers.
Some MTAs add received headers like "received by for ".
On 14.01.23 19:10, Gerald Galster
On 14.01.23 11:02, Chris Green wrote:
>I use postfix on my home server and deliver mail by connecting to my
>hosting providers' "smart host" using authenticated SMTP.
>
>My home system's hostname is zbmc.eu but I don't use that domain in my
>E-Mail address, I use isbd.co.uk which domain is hosted
26 matches
Mail list logo
