We have noticed several entries like:
postfix/postdrop[5917]: warning: uid=0: Illegal seek
in our logs. Is this anything we should be worried about?
Thanks
Steve
--
thorNET
Internet Services, Consultancy & Training
www.thornet.co.uk
Where is the best place to file a feature request? I can't find
anything on the website, although I may be a little slow in that
regard!
On 10/6/2009 8:06 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Is the order significant, i.e. is permit_mynetworks,
The order of restrictions is generally significant.
permit_sasl_authenticated the same as
permit_sasl_authenticated,permit_mynetworks?
No. The first example does not al
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Is the order significant, i.e. is permit_mynetworks,
The order of restrictions is generally significant.
permit_sasl_authenticated the same as
permit_sasl_authenticated,permit_mynetworks?
No. The first example does not allow networks
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Noel Jones wrote:
> ># main.cf
> >mynetworks = 127.0.0.1
> >
> >and everywhere that you have "permit_sasl_authenticated", make
> >sure it now says "permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated".
> Is the order significant, i.e. is permit_mynetworks,
Th
Noel Jones wrote:
# main.cf
mynetworks = 127.0.0.1
and everywhere that you have "permit_sasl_authenticated", make sure it
now says "permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated".
Is the order significant, i.e. is permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated the same as
permit_sasl_authenticat
On 10/6/2009 7:16 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
I'd like email from localhost to not require certificates or
authentication--especially since we assume that people on the machine,
or tunneling to the machine have already passed some level of
authentication. How do I do it?
Patrick
# main.cf
mynet
I'd like email from localhost to not require certificates or
authentication--especially since we assume that people on the machine,
or tunneling to the machine have already passed some level of
authentication. How do I do it?
Patrick
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> d...@teklibre.org (Dave T?ht) writes:
>>
>> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>>
>> >> Dave Taht:
>> >
>> > Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>> > *sending* mail on different protoco
On 10/6/2009 4:42 PM, Owen Townsend wrote:
Hi postfix-users@postfix.org:
Note - This email is same as prior email (subject mail.cf help please)
- resending because I had not complete the list subscription process
when I sent the 1st 1
(saw a note that said such emails would be ignored)
Rich Shepard put forth on 10/6/2009 4:38 PM:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
>>>I want to examine delivered messages that contain
>>> "Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64" in the header.
>>
>> Basically that would be all messages...
>
> Ralf,
>
> I asked locally about that be
Hi postfix-users@postfix.org:
Note - This email is same as prior email (subject mail.cf help please)
- resending because I had not complete the list subscription process
when I sent the 1st 1
(saw a note that said such emails would be ignored)
--- same as prior email (if y
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Perhaps "warn" is not the right concept for inspecting mail. Options more
directly related to mail inspection would be:
holdFreeze the mail in the queue until acted upon.
Frozen mail can be inspected with "postcat -q queueid", or
deleted/requeued
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I want to examine delivered messages that contain
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64" in the header.
Basically that would be all messages...
Ralf,
I asked locally about that because much of the spam I receive is coded
base64 while almost all
Rich Shepard:
> The Postfix book tells me that using the WARN option on a restriction
> (such as in the /etc/postfix/header_checks file) logs the warning while
> delivering the message. However, there is apparently no marking of the
> message so it's clearly identified as one that tripped that
* Rich Shepard :
>The Postfix book tells me that using the WARN option on a restriction
> (such as in the /etc/postfix/header_checks file) logs the warning while
> delivering the message. However, there is apparently no marking of the
> message so it's clearly identified as one that tripped tha
The Postfix book tells me that using the WARN option on a restriction
(such as in the /etc/postfix/header_checks file) logs the warning while
delivering the message. However, there is apparently no marking of the
message so it's clearly identified as one that tripped that warning.
I want to
Dave T?ht:
> d...@teklibre.org (Dave T?ht) writes:
>
> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>
> >> Dave Taht:
> >
> > Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
> > *sending* mail on different protocols?
> >
> > The simplest version would implement somethi
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:17:54PM -0700, Eric Vaughn wrote:
> Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be
> slow?
Eric your post premature. You don't yet have measurements showing Postfix
2.6 to be "slow". Lets get the volume comparisons, and tcpdump captures
of both th
Carl A jeptha kirjoitti:
Some of our clients contacts are getting the above message. I have check
the hostname and ip number and they do not correspond.
Are we being to restrictive???
If required I will post my config file.
You are rejecting clients with non working dns (A and PTR must point
On 10/6/2009 10:58 AM, Carl A jeptha wrote:
Some of our clients contacts are getting the above message. I have check
the hostname and ip number and they do not correspond.
Are we being to restrictive???
If you're rejecting mail you want, then you're being too
restrictive.
If required I wi
Carl A jeptha kirjoitti:
Some of our clients contacts are getting the above message. I have check
the hostname and ip number and they do not correspond.
Are we being to restrictive???
If required I will post my config file.
Sounds like reverse problem in dns. Post your config file (postconf -
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> Dave Täht put forth on 10/6/2009 10:02 AM:
>> d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
>>
>> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>>
Dave Taht:
>>> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>>> *sending* mail on different proto
Some of our clients contacts are getting the above message. I have check
the hostname and ip number and they do not correspond.
Are we being to restrictive???
If required I will post my config file.
--
You have a Good Day now,
Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Offi
Dave Täht put forth on 10/6/2009 10:02 AM:
> d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
>
> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>
>>> Dave Taht:
>> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>> *sending* mail on different protocols?
>>
>> The simplest version
d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>> Dave Taht:
>
> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
> *sending* mail on different protocols?
>
> The simplest version would implement something like:
>
> smtp_try_sendproto
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>>
>> > Dave Taht:
>> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>> >>
>> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
>> >> MX 10 mytinyarmb
Eric Vaughn:
> The list of changes (we upgraded a spare server to swap in as a replacement):
> OLD NEW
> Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
> i386. x64
> 2.4 ghrz cpu. 2.83 ghrz cpu
> 4 gigs ram. 4 gigs ram
> Op
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 7:17 PM:
> Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be slow?
>
> Other than the obvious suspects; stress adaptive behavior, logging,
> ulimit (running out of file descriptors).
>
> We are a very high volume site, we use postfix only as
29 matches
Mail list logo
