and tests are
performed), but I was amazed how much easier it was to solve a complex
problem like this with Exim.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
.
AFAICT, the transport table will override my
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps stuff no matter what.
Is there a way to achieve sender-based routing before any
recipient-based decision is made?
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
appear to be blocked. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
On 07/22/2013 05:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Florin Andrei:
The goal is to send most emails to local, send most mydomain.com
recipients to a relay nearby, and let foobardomain.com senders go out on
the Internet freely.
Presumably, if foobardomain.com senders send mail to local
of the original message. This should apply only to bounces
delivered to this particular inbox.
Sounds like a procmail job, but if it's doable in Postfix alone I'd like
to take that route since it's less resource-intensive.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
in different parts of the code.
I do not intend to mess with regular email. No regular email is being
sent through these machines.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
On 02/26/2013 01:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Florin Andrei:
Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server, as a failure notification.
No. It is sent
. But
no message should ever leave this box, for no reason, even if it's a
notification for delivery error.
I could block outbound port tcp/25 with iptables, but it seems inelegant.
Would this do the trick?
default_transport = error:no outbound emails, sorry
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
. But that's ok, the internal rate is orders of magnitude above
the Yahoo rate anyway. From an external perspective, things are actually
much better now.
Case closed. Thanks for all the help.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
- this is true even right now, when distribution is skewed to the faster
server 4:1. My estimate is, a near-1:1 distribution would actually fix
our time-constraint problem even before whitelisting. So you see how
this is kind of a big incentive to get it done.
--
Florin Andrei
http
and maximal_backoff_time =
2000. I'll try 500 and 1000 instead, maybe that makes the blue bumps
more narrow.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
distribution? What makes one system receive more emails? Is it because
it's more responsive? (closer topologically, also faster hardware)
What's the algorithm?
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
On 06/21/2010 11:31 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
yahoo_destination_concurrency_limit = 4
yahoo_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 5
yahoo_destination_rate_delay = 1s
yahoo_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 1/3
On 06/21/2010 12:42 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:21:45PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
yahoo_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 20
yahoo_destination_rate_delay = 1s
I can't say I understand *why* the 1s rate delay makes the feedback and the
concurrency limit
On 06/14/2010 11:54 AM, Florin Andrei wrote:
Well, that does it. I got RPM packages with 2.7 from two different
sources. Time for testing, then upgrade, and I'll keep y'all posted with
the results.
And here it is, the status update.
I got the 2.7.0 src.rpm packages made by Simon J Mudd
http
make.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
On 06/14/2010 11:13 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Florin Andrei:
P.S.: We're using postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2 that comes with Red Hat 5. I'm
That is two Postfix versions before _rate_delay was introduced.
You may want to upgrade to Postfix 2.5 or later.
Aw great. :( Sometimes Red Hat's conservative
for dealing with Yahoo.
Thanks.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
when client certs are used.
All the crypto stuff (CA, server cert, client cert) is ok, I tested it
already with the email client and Dovecot (secure IMAP).
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
is an iPhone and the mail config is rather
primitive) but in the end it worked pretty well.
So, now I'm not worried about that option, since the listener on port 25
is non-TLS.
Thanks,
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
it automatically.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
on the iPhone, so I
would have to install / configure an IPSec thing from scratch if the
iPhone doesn't play nice with SMTP / SSL / SASL. It's not rocket science
but it's a lot of tedious work.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
to keep things simple, hence this
inquiry.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
Florin Andrei wrote:
Is there a way to bind the listener to an interface using the interface
name (eth5:smtp) instead of the IP (1.2.3.4:smtp)?
Also, you know what would *really* help? The ability to say: bind to
all interfaces except this one, by name. That would be really, really
neat
Wietse Venema wrote:
Florin Andrei:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Is there a way to bind the listener to an interface using the interface
name (eth5:smtp) instead of the IP (1.2.3.4:smtp)?
No. The bind(2) system call specifies an address. Not an interface,
and not the route. Connections with source
26 matches
Mail list logo
