Scratch my previous suggestion as it was obviously not the correct
solution. Read on.
On 5/4/2014 9:01 AM, post...@nisny.com wrote:
> On , wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
>> post...@nisny.com:
>>> There were several attempts from postfix to connect to 6 different mx
>>> servers to deliver one email.
Simon:
> All of a sudden (Monday morning - typical) we have starting getting this
> error:
>
> postfix/smtpd[4696]: lost connection after DATA (0 bytes) from XXX...
Your server loses the SMTP connection.
> Which is resulting in the following bounce back to senders:
>
> Server refused mail at EN
All of a sudden (Monday morning - typical) we have starting getting this
error:
postfix/smtpd[4696]: lost connection after DATA (0 bytes) from XXX...
Which is resulting in the following bounce back to senders:
Server refused mail at END OF DATA - 554 5.7.1 This message has been
blocked because t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 04.05.2014 23:16, schrieb Wietse Venema:
@Victor/Wietse:
> Thus, if you want impersonation use XCLIENT. If you want to have
> more useful logging from a post-filter MTA. use XFORWARD.
Thanks to you both for your explanations. I never realized th
Peer Heinlein:
> as shown in the log we have a Postfix 2.9.4 with a localhost-connect
> from Amavis on Port 10025 that uses the xforward-command to give us
> the source IP address from the real client:
>
> But in the smtpd_recipient_restrictions Postfix makes lookups just for
> the localhost sourc
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 10:20:23PM +0200, Peer Heinlein wrote:
> as shown in the log we have a Postfix 2.9.4 with a localhost-connect
> from Amavis on Port 10025 that uses the xforward-command to give us
> the source IP address from the real client:
XFORWARD is for logging only. Only XCLIENT cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
as shown in the log we have a Postfix 2.9.4 with a localhost-connect
from Amavis on Port 10025 that uses the xforward-command to give us
the source IP address from the real client:
Apr 28 16:04:19 host postfix/smtpd[31803]: connect from
localh
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 07:13 -0600, James Lay wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Trying to figure out why the below made it through
>
> May 1 06:57:14 gateway postfix/smtpd[15631]: warning: hostname
> irc.madboxes.cc does not resolve to address 67.51.218.144
> May 1 06:57:14 gateway postfix/smtpd[15631]: co
On , wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
post...@nisny.com:
There were several attempts from postfix to connect to 6 different mx
servers to deliver one email. They all have the same result so I'm
only
including the dump of the first here:
We see SYN, SYN|ACK, ACK, and a bunch of retransmissions.
On , Stefan Foerster wrote:
nk11p00mm-mx006.me.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 3314275386, win 1400,
options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 6,sackOK,TS val 170874802 ecr 0],
length 0
E..<.e@.@..r.d.:...x...
[...]
I then did a capture of a telnet session to the same server on port
2
post...@nisny.com:
> There were several attempts from postfix to connect to 6 different mx
> servers to deliver one email. They all have the same result so I'm only
> including the dump of the first here:
We see SYN, SYN|ACK, ACK, and a bunch of retransmissions.
SYN: Initial client window
> nk11p00mm-mx006.me.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 3314275386, win 1400,
> options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 6,sackOK,TS val 170874802 ecr 0],
> length 0
> E..<.e@.@..r.d.:...x...
[...]
> I then did a capture of a telnet session to the same server on port 25:
>
> reading from
On 5/4/2014 3:02 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
> 1. Create relay transports for the problem domains and limit
> concurrency to those domains, until your sender reputation with Akamai
> has increased to the point they allow parallel deliveries.
>
> 2. Contact the Akamai hostmaster and inquire as t
On 5/3/2014 9:48 PM, post...@nisny.com wrote:
...
> I am clueless as to why telnet would receive a correct response but
> Postfix not.
>
> I know see this is not necessarily a Postfix issue but not sure what the
> next step would be, so if anyone can offer guidance it would be
> appreciated.
The
14 matches
Mail list logo
