Re: Postfix problems when system spool has files

--On Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:48 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: Anyone have an insight into why? Postfix version is 2.4.7. This is really a platform-specific question, that can be answered only by people who have access to the affected OS. Ok, but it's also something directly r

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

victor, replies below > > > > > > 1500 users is not much? wow, how much users can a xeon dual processor box > > with > a RAID10 array, 8 gigs of ram handle. i would appreciate a rough estimate? > > Depends on how much content processing you force on the CPU. If it is > a webmail server,

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:28:18PM -0800, Linux Advocate wrote: > > > > > Sorry. Allow me to rephrase, is there any setting in postfix (main.cf, > > > master.cf) whereby we can increase the number of threads, memory usage > > > ,etc to allow for higher concurrency? > > > > 1500 users is not ver

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

> > Sorry. Allow me to rephrase, is there any setting in postfix (main.cf, > > master.cf) whereby we can increase the number of threads, memory usage > > ,etc to allow for higher concurrency? > > 1500 users is not very many. You probably don't need higher than default > concurrency. > > htt

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:13:11PM -0800, Linux Advocate wrote: > > > 2. For a setup of about 1500 virtual users on a centos 5.2 machine with a > > > raid10 array and with 8gb of ram, what settings do i need to change in > > > postfix for better performance with regards to main.cf /master.cf. Dove

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

replies below... > > > 1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have > > quota implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for "enforcment and > > notification"? > > Some admins like to set per user (or group) quotas via dovecot. Many dovecot > implementations use Maild

Re: mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Linux Advocate wrote: > 1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have > quota implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for "enforcment and > notification"? Some admins like to set per user (or group) quotas via dovecot. Many dovecot implementations

Re: Question regarding this mailing list & privacy.

mouss wrote: > KLaM Postmaster a écrit : > >> /dev/rob0 wrote: >> >>> On Sun February 22 2009 16:05:09 KLaM Postmaster wrote: >>> >>> Is this mailing list closed (or fairly closed), I only ask because if it is then there does not seem to any good reason to munge addresse

mailbox_size_limit , quota + some other questions

Guys, i would like to understand the above said a little better and hence the following questions; 1. Since postfix has a mailbox_size_limit, why do we still need to have quota implemented (say via dovecot). Is it just for "enforcment and notification"? 1a. Is it ok to just set mailbox_size_li

upgrading amavisd

Hi! Im upgrading a server with Postfix and in the part to upgrade the Amaisd from 2.1.2 version to 2.6.1 it appears the next message when Im in the debug part: Problem in Amavis::DB or Amavis::DB::SNMP code: Can't locate loadable object for module BerkeleyDB in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/lib/perl5

Re: Prevent vacation autoreply for recipient_delimiter?

Ok, having pulled out all of the recipient_delimiter values (main.cf and amavisd.conf), and not actually sending spam, I can pretty clearly see that postfix is handing the vacation.pl code two separate addresses, because vacation.pl runs twice. (The only reason I don't get two vacation resp

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:40:05PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > It's too late for a few times (until user fixes the client > configuration), but not forever (because it won't work until the > configuration is fixed). Also with a laptop the initial setup is often > done in a relatively safe locati

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:11 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Timo Sirainen: > > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > It's basically the same thing as "disable plaintext authentication", > > > > except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis > > > > rather t

Re: pipe - setup question

On Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 00:54 CET, Jon Drukman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jon Drukman wrote: > > > unsuccessful delivery from the outside: > > Feb 18 15:39:41 181379-web1 postfix/smtpd[30983]: NOQUEUE: reject: > > RCPT from wf-out-1314.google.com[209.85.200.175]: 55

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

Timo Sirainen: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > It's basically the same thing as "disable plaintext authentication", > > > except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis > > > rather than globally. There are probably some other use cases that I've

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > It's basically the same thing as "disable plaintext authentication", > > except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis > > rather than globally. There are probably some other use cases that I've > > heard before but ca

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

Timo Sirainen: > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > > > In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the > > > connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to > >

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Chris Dos a écrit : >[snip] > > Well, the simple fact is that they want me to process the bounce backs and > not send the bounce back to the > user, but process it internally. Is there a way to do this without using > VERP? > you can use smtp_generic_maps to rewrite the sender address when ou

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the > > connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to > > Dovecot. It compiles, bu

Re: Question regarding this mailing list & privacy.

KLaM Postmaster a écrit : > /dev/rob0 wrote: >> On Sun February 22 2009 16:05:09 KLaM Postmaster wrote: >> >>> Is this mailing list closed (or fairly closed), I only ask because if >>> it is then there does not seem to any good reason to munge addresses, >>> domain names etc. >>> If it open (tha

Re: Prevent vacation autoreply for recipient_delimiter?

post...@corwyn.net a écrit : > > > The problem still: users on vacation generate auto-response to incoming > email id'd as spam. I use a recipient_delimiter and amavisd/spamassassin > to flad incoming mail as spam with "+Spam". I'd really like to stop this > to avoid backscatter issues, be a good

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

Victor Duchovni: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the > > connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to > > Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it

Re: Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the > connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to > Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it. How is this useful? It s

Sending SSL/TLS state to Dovecot auth

In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it. It anyway looks like sending the SSL/TLS state requires an additional parameter to xsasl_serve

Re: Prevent vacation autoreply for recipient_delimiter?

The problem still: users on vacation generate auto-response to incoming email id'd as spam. I use a recipient_delimiter and amavisd/spamassassin to flad incoming mail as spam with "+Spam". I'd really like to stop this to avoid backscatter issues, be a good netizen, and not validate addresses

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Well, your outbound postfix machines will route the bounces to whatever address is used in the "mail from:" envelope. Just run a catchall at the domain of choice and a script to parse the messages. Your outbound mail server doesn't send bounces to the addresses in the headers, it sends it to the

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Peter Blair wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Chris Dos wrote: >> I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to >> intercept every hard bounced back >> e-mail and process it for our web application. >> >> We have about nine servers relaying mail through our

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Chris Dos wrote: > I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to > intercept every hard bounced back > e-mail and process it for our web application. > > We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers. >

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Chris Dos wrote: Noel Jones wrote: Chris Dos wrote: I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to intercept every hard bounced back e-mail and process it for our web application. We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers. These se

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Noel Jones wrote: > Chris Dos wrote: >> I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay >> servers to intercept every hard bounced back >> e-mail and process it for our web application. >> >> We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix >> servers. These serv

Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions is not working on postfix 2.3

Rahmathulla KM wrote: Dear Techies, I am trying to implement an access control on an alias email account called us...@domain.com . I need to allow only few users to send mail to this alias. I tried many of the combination and didnt got a +ve result yet. I tried googli

Re: Accepting messages only for valid users in a secondary MX server

Santiago Romero wrote: Postfix calls domains that it accepts mail for but delivers elsewhere (such as MX backups) relay_domains. You can use a plain text file or any supported postfix map type. The list if valid recipients in those domains is specified in relay_recipient_maps. Specify one

Re: Intercepting Bounced Backs

Chris Dos wrote: I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to intercept every hard bounced back e-mail and process it for our web application. We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers. These servers send mail on behalf of our cl

Re: Accepting messages only for valid users in a secondary MX server

Postfix calls domains that it accepts mail for but delivers elsewhere (such as MX backups) relay_domains. You can use a plain text file or any supported postfix map type. The list if valid recipients in those domains is specified in relay_recipient_maps. Specify one or more map files listi

Re: Limit rate/concurrency to a given domain

On Mon February 23 2009 09:52:26 Santiago Romero wrote: > > That's right, the logs show the program name (smtp) not the > > transport name; you can't tell which transport called smtp. > > > > You can add something like > > -o syslog_name=postfix-slow > > to the master.cf slow transport entry to d

Intercepting Bounced Backs

I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to intercept every hard bounced back e-mail and process it for our web application. We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix servers. These servers send mail on behalf of our clients. I'm trying

smtpd_recipient_restrictions is not working on postfix 2.3

Dear Techies, I am trying to implement an access control on an alias email account called us...@domain.com. I need to allow only few users to send mail to this alias. I tried many of the combination and didnt got a +ve result yet. I tried googling a lot, and found the usage of declaring restrictio

Re: Accepting messages only for valid users in a secondary MX server

Santiago Romero wrote: To summarize it, currently I have 2 files called: valid_accounts.txt: a list of valid accounts in the primary MX. domains_to_check_user.txt: Holds a list of domains. Server only checks RCPT against valid_accounts.txt for the domains present in this file. When a new emai

Re: Accepting messages only for valid users in a secondary MX server

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 05:01:09PM CET, Santiago Romero said: > > Hi. > > I have a secondary MX server with qmail that I'm migrating to postfix. > Currently, my qmail server checks RCPT TO addresses against a plain text > file that contains all the valid email accounts for some of the domains

Accepting messages only for valid users in a secondary MX server

Hi. I have a secondary MX server with qmail that I'm migrating to postfix. Currently, my qmail server checks RCPT TO addresses against a plain text file that contains all the valid email accounts for some of the domains that is making MX-backup for. That "plain-text" file is scp'ed from the

Re: Limit rate/concurrency to a given domain

That's right, the logs show the program name (smtp) not the transport name; you can't tell which transport called smtp. You can add something like -o syslog_name=postfix-slow to the master.cf slow transport entry to differentiate the logging. That's it. Postfix is awesome and very well des

Re: Limit rate/concurrency to a given domain

Santiago Romero wrote: mouss escribió: Is there any way to verify seeing the logfile if a given message is going throught a given transport (say "slow" in my master.cf) instead of standard "smtp" transport? I'm not sure or I don't know how to check if the messages are being delivered by the "sl

Re: LMTP delivery and DSN action value for "success"

Michel S?bastien: > >> Hi all. > >> I use LMTP transport to deliver mails into Cyrus and when asking > >> DSN success I got an action "relayed". > > > Besides final delivery, LMTP is also used to deliver mail into > > content filters. The advantage of LMTP is that the protocol reports > > one end

RE: LMTP delivery and DSN action value for "success"

>> Hi all. >> I use LMTP transport to deliver mails into Cyrus and when asking >> DSN success I got an action "relayed". > Besides final delivery, LMTP is also used to deliver mail into > content filters. The advantage of LMTP is that the protocol reports > one end-of-message status for each reci

Re: Different anvil for auth users?

Hi Wietse, 2009/2/23 Wietse Venema : > anvil is not a traffic shaping tool. > > For fine-grained policies, I suggest you use an external policy daemon. > Such as http://www.policyd.org/ > >Wietse > Was just looking at that as an option. Been running the old version 1 but I'm looking at ve

Re: Different anvil for auth users?

Guy: > Hi guys, > > I already have anvil set up to rate limit connections to our servers. > Is it possible (in one postfix instance) to have one set of anvil > settings for remote servers and another set for auth'd users? As far > as I understand it, it's not possible, but I thought I should ask >

Re: Mail forwarding based on from address

Sahil Tandon: > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Islam, Towhid wrote: > > > Perhaps this question has been asked before, if so, my apology. Is it > > possible for postfix to forward mail based on a from address, as in > > received from a certain address or domain? Thanks. > > http://www.postfix.org/postcon

Different anvil for auth users?

Hi guys, I already have anvil set up to rate limit connections to our servers. Is it possible (in one postfix instance) to have one set of anvil settings for remote servers and another set for auth'd users? As far as I understand it, it's not possible, but I thought I should ask before looking at

Re: Alias Problem

Sahil, I have rechecked my configuration and googled for any root cause for this failure, i didn't find any clue. Before configuring SMTP-AUTH, i know mail are reaching outside when mail sent to alias, so i am planing to check disabling SMTP-AUTH. will update the result. Regards, Ramesh. --- I

Re: Limit rate/concurrency to a given domain

mouss escribió: Is there any way to verify seeing the logfile if a given message is going throught a given transport (say "slow" in my master.cf) instead of standard "smtp" transport? I'm not sure or I don't know how to check if the messages are being delivered by the "slow" transport I defined