On 13/01/2011 22:06, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 13/01/11 19:00, Jaques Cochet wrote:
After some reading:
- GFS and maildir work bad together
- NFS and maildir are not that good, NFS and postfix have some issues
but should be OK.
Where did you read that GFS worked badly with maildir? I'd be
On 13/01/11 16:00, Wietse Venema wrote:
There have been a few late changes to clean up the postscreen user
interface. I left in some backwards compatibility support for early
adopters. The backwards compatibility will be removed by the time
of the Postfix 2.8 stable release.
Wietse
I get
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
Please follow the instructions!!
Wietse
On 14/01/11 13:02, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* John Fawcett john...@erba.tv:
I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
by the new
* John Fawcett john...@erba.tv:
The code itself seems only to check if the values are set so if you have
removed them completely (rather than setting to blank) you should see
the warning because the default value of postscreen_whitelist_networks
is not blank (unless $mynetworks is blank).
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:59:38 +0100, John Fawcett john...@erba.tv wrote:
I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
by the new
On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
Please follow the instructions!!
Wietse
thanks
Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
and
postscreen_whitelist_networks.
since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
whitelisted for postscreen (in particular this whitelisting is used to
avoid DNSBL checks on
John Fawcett:
Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
and
postscreen_whitelist_networks.
since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
whitelisted for postscreen (in particular this whitelisting is used to
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:53:01PM +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
On 14/01/11 14:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
Up to now I have been using the same access file for:
check_client_access in smtpd_mumble_restrictions
and
postscreen_whitelist_networks.
since the client ips I had whitelisted for smtpd would also be
whitelisted for postscreen (in
Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
Because I don't want to have a REAL (as in UNIX) user for every
Hello,
What would one recommend as the simplest solution to implementing a
per-user exception to mailbox_size_limit or alternative? Should one
be using quotas on my /var/spool/mail ?
Thanks!
-Ev
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:28:16AM -0600, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
What would one recommend as the simplest solution to implementing a
per-user exception to mailbox_size_limit or alternative? Should one
be using quotas on my /var/spool/mail ?
Use a real IMAP server backend, not
On 1/13/2011 7:26 AM, Ramprasad wrote:
Currently on my MX servers I use a custom rhsbl to reject domains
blacklisted by us. The DNS lookups are handled using a local rbldnsd
server.
I am trying to create a list of spammer email ids so that I can reject
spammers of neutral domains. But this
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
yesterday, in fact, in response to you. Why are you running the same thread on
both mailing lists?
--
Stan
On 14/01/11 18:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
yesterday, in fact, in response to you.
You did indeed, thanks
Why are you
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
--
Stan
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:00:43PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
The above systems reflect the 3 supported flavours
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived TCP/UP stack,
and will probably work. I may get
On 1/14/11 3:41 PM, Markus Treinen wrote:
Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
Because I don't want to
Le 13/01/2011 22:06, Jonathan Tripathy a écrit :
On 13/01/11 19:00, Jaques Cochet wrote:
After some reading:
- GFS and maildir work bad together
- NFS and maildir are not that good, NFS and postfix have some issues
but should be OK.
Where did you read that GFS worked badly with maildir?
Le 14/01/2011 15:41, Markus Treinen a écrit :
Am 14.01.2011 00:02, schrieb Jeroen Geilman:
You alias VIRTUAL addresses to REAL users, not the other way around.
The real user already has a real mailbox - why does he need to go
through at least 2 extra translation steps ?
Because I don't want
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not
On 2011-01-04 11:05 AM, mouss wrote:
- postfixadmin has a vacation.pl script. but I don't know its status now.
The latest version (2.3.2) is very good...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/14/2011 12:22 PM:
On 14/01/11 18:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM:
What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea?
I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list
yesterday, in fact, in
27 matches
Mail list logo