Quanah Gibson-Mount put forth on 2/28/2011 4:03 PM:
> Postfix is highly used among
> various linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, RedHat all come to
> mind), but with the exception of Redhat, none of them link postfix
> against the MySQL libraries by default.
I'm no dev so please excuse the
Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 2/25/2011 4:20 PM:
> * lst_ho...@kwsoft.de :
>> Zitat von Wietse Venema :
>>> This is now running on an Ubuntu virtual machine.
>>
>> Cool...
>> And BTW i also have never seen Postfix die. It is one of the most
>> stable non-trivial software systems i have seen unti
Victor Duchovni put forth on 2/23/2011 12:39 PM:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:17:18PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Matteo Cazzador put forth on 2/23/2011 11:49 AM:
>>> Thank's a lot , i need to do the postmap command on sender_access files?
>>
>>>
Matteo Cazzador put forth on 2/23/2011 11:49 AM:
> Thank's a lot , i need to do the postmap command on sender_access files?
> Il 22/02/2011 22:24, Victor Duchovni ha scritto:
>> indexed = ${default_database_type}:${config_directory}/
>> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
>> check_sender_ac
Andrew Gaydenko put forth on 2/23/2011 1:24 AM:
> Hi!
>
> After switching to another ISP I have a problem in running _local_ postfix
> server (I use it for outgoing messages _only_) - the ISP doesn't support
> reverse DNS. A s a result, other MTA are not happy with my one.
>
> So, the question
Per-Erik Persson put forth on 2/14/2011 4:17 PM:
> I have recently found out the beuty of restriction classes.
> So to reject senders from certain sites that usually misspell their sender
> address I have set up the following:
>
>
> smtpd_restriction_classes = verify_client_sender
> verify_client
Bjørn Ruberg put forth on 2/14/2011 4:18 AM:
> On 02/14/2011 10:47 AM, Georg Schönweger wrote:
>> you mean the failure-notice email?
>
> No, he meant logs from your mail server.
>
>> Ok here it is;
>>
>> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at smtplq01.our-external-smtp.com.
>
> That's not postfix
Georg Schönweger put forth on 2/14/2011 1:59 AM:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday i received a failure-notice;
> Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied -->
> this is the error-message which i received from the final recipient.
> The email was send from our webserver. The webserver (postfix) sends th
Victor Duchovni put forth on 2/11/2011 4:50 PM:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:38:41PM +0100, Gergely Buday wrote:
>
>> Dear Postfix experts,
>>
>> I'm new to mailing servers and need advice. Is it reasonable for my
>> small company to use my own mail server? How much configuration is
>> needed for
Gary Smith put forth on 2/11/2011 11:15 AM:
> Problem isn't white/grey/black listings, its that they accepted the email
> with a valid return code but it never made it to the destination box. It only
> seems to be happened on a few recipients. Basically, in short, the
> destination ISP (in this
meyer-jor...@t-online.de put forth on 2/8/2011 11:59 PM:
>> I'm afraid Wolfgang's method is the only one, then - you'd have to
>> correlate all recipients by incoming queue-id.
>> A perl array could probably do this moderately efficiently, but I know
>> of no ready-made tools that do this - espec
GB GB put forth on 2/8/2011 4:52 PM:
> so if I understand correctly, when I use
> sender_dependent_relayhost_maps transport and relayhost need to be
> empty
GB GB put forth on 2/8/2011 4:10 PM:
> here is the outputthe current version of postfix is 2.3.19
>
> mail_release_date = 20040915
>
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/7/2011 1:05 PM:
> getpwnam() is not a good example because Postfix uses proxymap from
> inside the jail, but you get the idea.
Here's a good example Wietse, one you helped me figure out/fix a couple of years
ago. Before Lenny (Released Feb 2009), Debian didn't create
Daniel Bromberg put forth on 2/7/2011 12:39 PM:
> Finally, how does one use Postfix properly in the possessive? "Postfix's,
> Postfixs', Postfix', and Postfixes" all look wrong.
Go the Romance language route and use "of". Example, instead of using
Postfix' smtpd_foo_restrictions
use
smtpd_foo
Reindl Harald put forth on 2/5/2011 12:49 PM:
> http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/?L=de
>
> Get a (virtual) appliance, their filters are fine and
> their one blacklist does never block anybody
You speak of trust WRT to Spamhaus, which is the must trusted dnsbl outfit on
the planet, and has bee
Charles Marcus put forth on 2/5/2011 11:49 AM:
> But you can't use one of the big public DNS resolvers if you are using
> spamhaus
> or any of the other BLs...
Exactly why I installed pdns recursor on my MX about a year ago or so. I'd been
using my ISP's resolvers and began having problems with
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 7:18 AM:
> I think there is a typo in the file:
>
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
>
> PREPEND X-GenericStaticHELO: (versatel.ml)
> should read /ml/nl/
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\
Reindl Harald put forth on 2/4/2011 4:35 AM:
>
>
> Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
>> I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
>> residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
>
> Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
> Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
> rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
> not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
Try:
~$ egrep "Dynamic - Please|Generic - Please|X-GenericSta
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 2/4/2011 3:36 AM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>> Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 2/4/2011 2:18 AM:
>>> * Jeroen Geilman :
>>>
>>>> I think Ralph meant: do you have an example how one would query this DNSBL
>>>> ?
>>>
s question about 4
hours ago:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 2/3/2011 11:03 PM:
> from: http://spamlinks.net/filter-dnsbl-lists.htm
> query.senderbase.org SENDERBASE ... Returns TXT records
>
_Not suitable for direct Postfix use_
>
> I manually dug a few bad and good (Sender
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/3/2011 5:55 PM:
> If it uses the common query method, just add it to your list of DNSBLs.
from: http://spamlinks.net/filter-dnsbl-lists.htm
query.senderbase.orgSENDERBASE ... Returns TXT records
Not suitable for direct Postfix use.
I manually dug a fe
Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K wrote:
>> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
>> residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
>> ISPs relay. Else they might have to upgrade to a bus
Jerry put forth on 2/3/2011 5:19 AM:
> FreeBSD had the 2.8 release in its ports system a few days after it was
> officially released. The 2.9(beta) release will be released into the
> ports system shortly. The original 2.8(beta) was available almost
> from its inception. The speed with which a pac
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 4:09 AM:
> True. Some of the matches don't reject, but prepend this header:
> X-GenericStaticHELO
> What is this header used for?
This exists due to the grey area between "residential" and "business"
classification. Some providers offer static IP service to small busi
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 3:44 AM:
> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
> residential ADSL from being an Email server,
As the directions in the file itself state, fix situations like this with a
simple whitelist. Given the number of hobbyist servers your MX w
Daniel Bromberg put forth on 2/3/2011 3:36 AM:
> The following spam got past all my filters. They're constantly evolving :-(
>
> I can't find the IP in any RBLs. Some meta-RBLs claim it's listed, but when I
> follow up to the actual RBL, it's clean. I use zen.spamhaus & spamcop.
> SpamAssassin was
Aggelos put forth on 2/2/2011 10:49 PM:
> on 02/03/2011 05:24 AM Aggelos wrote the following:
>
>> With that setup, if I wanted to accept mail from a specific Internet IP,
>> which would otherwise be filtered out, how would I do it?
>>
>
> I meant clients that are rejected like so:
> Feb 3 06:46
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
> Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you may be able
> to
> get it as a backport later this year:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postfix
>
> They lag behind something awful.
You're smoke'n crack. ;) 2.7.1
JKL put forth on 2/2/2011 12:23 PM:
>
> On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
>>
>>> The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
>>> cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
>>>
>>> smtpd_recipient_rest
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 2/1/2011 11:21 PM:
> It might be beneficial for you to send your postconf -n output so we can make
> some anti spam configuration suggestions. This spam you're having a problem
> with would likely not have made it past the normal spam filters of most pe
Simon put forth on 2/1/2011 5:39 PM:
> We are receiving what appears to be backscatter from spam
...
> Return-Path: *[ourdomain.actual.domain]**>
> Received: from 195-191-72-102.optolan.net.ua (unknown [195.191.72.102])
> by smtp-0.counselschambers.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id
>
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 1/26/2011 4:32 AM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>
>> Your problem has nothing to do with Postfix, or any MTA you might use. Most
>> of
>> the big mailbox providers have bulk sender policies. If you are to send bulk
>> mail to their users,
Bissio2000 put forth on 1/25/2011 8:25 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> we have some problem with our ip reputation on other provider. We are using
> our postfix server as delivery server for some mailing lists (about
> 5000/8000 users); after a few days the destination providers (as hotmail, or
> yahoo) block
Walter Pinto put forth on 1/21/2011 10:57 PM:
> I used the following command to determine what needed to be removed
> from my main.cf:
>
> postconf -d > defaultcfg && postconf -n > customcfg && perl -ne 'print
> if ($seen{$_} .= @ARGV) =~ /10$/' customcfg defaultcfg
>
> Then I made the suggested
Walter Pinto put forth on 1/21/2011 7:42 PM:
> Thanks Noel. Let me know if I'm missing anything. This server is
> supposed to act just as a relay.
It sure would read a lot easier if you didn't manually declare all those default
settings. Which Linux distro is this? Whoever packages Postfix with
Jaques Cochet put forth on 1/17/2011 12:18 AM:
> If postfix alone is running on the server, let's say as a mail router
> or backend delivey system, would postfix processes make use of all
> cores? would I be left with cores doing nothing even If I have an
> important number of emails to process?
I
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
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
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
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/12/2011 8:58 AM:
>> Major point is that GlusterFS is NOT another file system. GlusterFS uses a
>> disk based backend and relies heavily on the underlying filesystem extended
>> attributes for handling which file is more recent on one brick over another
>> when perf
mouss put forth on 1/8/2011 3:53 PM:
> Le 08/01/2011 13:28, Samuel Sappa a écrit :
>> Sorry if my question doesn't fit the rule in this mailing list, i'm
>> not looking for contact from spamcannibal or both yahoo and gmail, i'm
>> just asking if there someone else have some experience and would
>>
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/1/2011 9:50 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> jason hirsh put forth on 12/31/2010 3:38 PM:
>>
>>> Dec 31 15:24:21 tuna postfix/smtpd[2514]: >
>>> asmtpout029.mac.com[17.148.16.104]: 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients
>>
>> Am
jason hirsh put forth on 12/31/2010 3:38 PM:
> Dec 31 15:24:21 tuna postfix/smtpd[2514]: >
> asmtpout029.mac.com[17.148.16.104]: 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients
Am I the only one that noticed this^? Or, am I the only one that
(mistakenly?) thinks it may be relevant?
Dec 31 15:24:21 tuna p
Rob van Dam put forth on 12/30/2010 3:25 PM:
> Seems Centos 5.5 is shipping an old version of Postfix.
Debian Stable has a reputation of shipping with dinosaur packages.
CentOS ships with stuff that existed before the first DNA chains
appeared in the primordial soup. :)
Luckily for you Simon Mud
Joan Moreau put forth on 12/28/2010 3:29 PM:
>
>
> Well, no need to get angry.
No one is angry. You're misreading "tone" as you're not a regular
member of this list. Replace "angry" with "direct" and you've got the
correct tone.
> I am just looking for a MySQL bakcend to replace the hard-disk
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/26/2010 7:09 PM:
> I have one last question. Since postfix's header information is most
> meaningful, is there a setting that would allow me to strip all the
> previous header info (in this case exchange's)?
Yes. This was covered somewhat recently on the list, and s
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/25/2010 6:06 PM:
> Actually, the original proble reported with the previous post namely
> connection timeout was resolved. After checking tcpdump, I realized
> outgoing smtp port was closed.
>
> But, as it appears, this email was not in vain. I need to use a
> diffe
mouss put forth on 12/26/2010 4:13 AM:
> Le 26/12/2010 05:12, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>> wrote:
>>> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
>>>> I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbo
Yaoxing put forth on 12/24/2010 9:20 AM:
> The list comes from our clients' subscriptions. However, we didn't
> verify the ownership of the emails before which maybe lead to invalid
> email addresses. This is what we can improve in future.
You should have already had a process in place for "list
ant to
relay the mail from _only_ the Exchange server simply have, I think.
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, IP_OF_EXCH_SERVER
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/23/2010 10:01 PM:
>>
>>> I am now looking to use the
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/23/2010 10:01 PM:
> I am now looking to use the postfix mail gateway, smart host,
> to send mail out. Specifically, I would like to bypass all of
> the checks done for incoming mail
If you are referring to user submitted mail to be relayed to the outside
world, yo
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 5:40 PM:
> Many thanks Stan
You're welcome. Please note [1] at bottom.
> But to be honest, you document is very hard to understand... for my
> skills
> cpusets are set to create cpu tasks environnements
> my problem is to ensure that all postfix tasks will g
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 3:43 PM:
> Dear bests
>
> I would like to know if you think this tool can help me about my
> needs :
>
> http://linux.die.net/man/1/taskset
Ahh, Linux, and Debian no less. My favorite as well. :)
I strongly suggest you read the following document (which
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 1:58 PM:
> Dear
>
> I have a server with 8 processors.
> I would like to create 8 postfix instances and each instance use a
> dedicated processor.
>
> Is it possible to do that ?
If binding a Postfix instance to a physical CPU is really what you
want/need,
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 12/23/2010 1:45 PM:
> * Wietse Venema :
>
>> I was getting suspicious because Yahoo is permanently refusing your
>> mail, but this is bad:
>>
>> % host 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org
>> 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org has address 127.0.0.2
>>
>> B
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 12:05 PM:
> Then I think I didn't express it clearly. sorry for my bad English.
> I have like 400,000 subscribers. every week I send to all of them a news
> letter. Every 4 sec, I send out 1 mail to 1 person. I know it's very
> slow, but still it congests. That's why
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 11:29 AM:
> relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024
Why are you sending outbound newsletters through a content filter? You
should already know that the content is not spam, and virus free, yes?
And if they are newsletters, why are you sending them every 4 seconds to
the
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/23/2010 6:10 AM:
>> 4. Less than 20 postfix process (while limitation is explicitly set to 100)
>
> Then, you are sending all mail through the same relay host. Why
> are you sending mass mail through a relay host?
>
> Wietse
It would appear my recommendation m
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 4:45 AM:
> Is this what you're talking about?
Yes.
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 148.63 27.55 6550.60 523033469 124353201092
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2524 116
> sda2 148.63 27.55 6550.59 523027626 124353101816
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.01 2895
Yaoxing put forth on 12/22/2010 9:59 PM:
> 3. 3.2MB/s disk IO write, 0.01MB/s read.
MB/s throughput isn't usually a factor, but IOPS definitely can be.
What's in the iostat tps column for the device your mail queues reside on?
If your mail queue resides on a single mechanical disk spindle you ma
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/21/2010 12:29 PM:
> Does anyone know of a server/software compatible with postfix that
> performs sender reputation query?
You need to be much more specific WRT "sender reputation" Roman. What
_precisely_ are you asking us to answer?
--
Stan
Randy Ramsdell put forth on 12/21/2010 11:37 AM:
> It appears mycingular ( iphone ) ips are listed on spamhaus ( XBL and
> PBL ) for 8 days. I have reject at the smtpd level if found. So my users
> are complaining and I am stuck on the phone with ATT to get them to fix
> this.
>
> Any suggestions
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/15/2010 12:48 PM:
> I have never seen smtpd use up significant amounts of CPU, except
> with Stan Hoeppner's extremely large PCRE or CIDR tables.
I do have some pretty large tables, but the high CPU burn is probably
more as much a function of my horribly old and slow
J. Bakshi put forth on 12/14/2010 3:27 AM:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:24:10 +0530
> "J. Bakshi" wrote:
>
>> Hello postfix gurus,
>>
>> I have an email server built on postfix+dovecot+mysql (I have made it based
>> on ISP style mailserver available at net ) for our organization and the
>> system i
J. Bakshi put forth on 12/13/2010 12:54 AM:
> Hello postfix gurus,
>
> I have an email server built on postfix+dovecot+mysql (I have made it based
> on ISP style mailserver available at net ) for our organization and the
> system is running for more than 4 yrs. I like to arrange something which
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/9/2010 2:52 PM:
> Dave Brodin:
>> Thank you very much for the info. I'm really filling in because our
>> main system administrator's last day is tomorrow, unfortunately. I
>> guess it's 8.2-PRERELEASE (not sure how happy I am to find that out).
>> We did try 2.4.
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/9/2010 9:38 AM:
> mail.info now has this:
> Dec 9 10:32:06 paulandcilla postfix/master[17432]: warning:
> /usr/lib/postfix/smtpd: bad command startup -- throttling
Ok, we need to troubleshoot this as Postfix isn't starting. What do you see in
/var/log/mail.log
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/9/2010 5:09 AM:
This is exactly why I wanted to see your main.cf. It's a total mess. I'll try
to annotate needed changes.
> then my main.cf:
> cat /etc/postfix/main.cf
Everything from here...
> permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_dest
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/9/2010 6:10 AM:
> Stan, don't encourage people to cut and paste main.cf snippets.
>
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
>
> Wietse
My apologies. I thought in this case it would be better for the OP and
possibly easier on
Stefan G. Weichinger put forth on 12/8/2010 5:55 PM:
> Am 09.12.2010 00:53, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
>
>> * is it really making greylisting useless? I use postgrey successfully
>
> small correction: on my own servers I run policyd for greylisting, not
> postgrey ... ;) just to be correct, an
Stefan G. Weichinger put forth on 12/8/2010 5:53 PM:
> Am 08.12.2010 07:52, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>> I just added installation/usage instructions to the top of the file
>> yesterday. As mouss stated, you'll see an entry in your mail log file
>> with detailed optional
Noel Jones put forth on 12/8/2010 9:22 PM:
> On 12/8/2010 7:07 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> While discussing restrictions in main.cf only, and specifically order
>> processing, it would actually be better if you pasted main.cf snippets
>> instead of postconf -n snippe
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/8/2010 8:01 PM:
> On 12/08/2010 08:07 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> As a general rule for smtpd_foo_restrictions:
>>
>> 1. inbuilt Postfix checks are fastest (eg. reject_non_fqdn_sender)
>> 2. local table lookups are 2nd fastest (eg. hash
Jack put forth on 12/8/2010 1:30 PM:
> FYI I have done this CIDR blocking for years at the firewall level ( people
> on the list harassed me about it) with minimal false positives but still
> enough to be a pain.
>
> I have lists from Turkey, Russia and other countries as well, but using the
> fir
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/8/2010 8:21 AM:
> I didn't realize they were order specific..
> it now reads:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks
> permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination check_client_access
> pcre:/etc/postfix/fqrdns.pcre, reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/7/2010 4:10 PM:
> On 12/07/2010 04:48 PM, Steffan A. Cline wrote:
>> CIDR blocking all of China with an auto whitelist for those that you email
>> directly?
> I don't know anyone in China, I know someone who travels there, but he
> has a Bellsouth address..
> so how
Paul Cartwright put forth on 12/7/2010 2:56 PM:
> On 12/07/2010 02:30 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Everyone's mileage varies. If you're having good results with Postgrey
>> you should try the fqrdns.pcre file that I recommended in the thread you
>> replied to. You
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 12/7/2010 2:20 PM:
> Zitat von Stan Hoeppner :
>
>> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 12/7/2010 2:18 AM:
>>> Zitat von Stan Hoeppner :
>> Postgrey's auto whitelist feature is on by default. In fact, you can't
>> disable
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 12/7/2010 2:18 AM:
> Zitat von Stan Hoeppner :
>
>> Noel Jones put forth on 12/6/2010 11:10 AM:
>>
>>> If you decide that greylisting is right for you, postgrey is a popular
>>> choice -- it's flexible and reliable.
>&g
Noel Jones put forth on 12/6/2010 11:10 AM:
> If you decide that greylisting is right for you, postgrey is a popular
> choice -- it's flexible and reliable.
...
> See google for benefits and risks of using greylisting if you're not
> familiar with it.
Interestingly, just a few days ago I decommis
Craig Baird put forth on 12/3/2010 6:57 PM:
> After staring at my Postfix config for hours on end, I still can't seem
> to find the problem here. I'm sure I've done something stupid, but I'm
> not seeing it. I'm trying to block a sender by e-mail address using
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions and c
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/2/2010 4:27 PM:
> The OP is really far better off querying the LDAP server:
That may be Viktor. I think he should test both and pick the solution
that works best in his environment, both from a performance and
management perspective. Choice is usually a good thin
Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/2/2010 6:08 AM:
> relay=IP[IP]:PORT, delay=5.7, delays=0.6/0/0.03/5.1, dsn=5.1.1,
> --
> and there's a 5 sec. delay ... seems way too long to me for just
> checking the recipient...!?
Completion of support for time stamps from different stage
Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/2/2010 6:08 AM:
> and there's a 5 sec. delay ... seems way too long to me for just
> checking the recipient...!?
That delay should be no longer than what a typical delivery to the
Exchange server would be. Since no message is sent, it should be
shorter by quite
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/2/2010 7:35 AM:
> Victor Duchovni:
>> Because I am not thinking about normal loads that don't matter. One
>> needs to survive hostile loads.
>>
LDAP tables are supported and not discouraged, but high volume sites
may want to dedicate some LDAP replicas to MTA
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz put forth on 12/2/2010 2:40 AM:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:43:30PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> The lookup is always a cache miss. Then an SMTP probe is sent. Dictionary
>> attacks always yield cache misses.
>
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 11:51 PM:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:43:30PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 5:06 PM:
>>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>>>> Are LDAP que
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 5:06 PM:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Are LDAP queries still simpler and cheaper once all recipient addresses
>> are cached in $data_directory/verify_cache?
>
> Yes, because the vast majority of &
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 4:25 PM:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:18:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> If more than that, for many reasons, I recommend using recipient address
>> verification instead of LDAP lookups, assuming you have decent spam
>> filt
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 3:41 PM:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:11:12PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 2:28 PM:
>>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:19:52PM +0100, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intend
Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/1/2010 9:19 AM:
> we need to set up postfix as an incoming relay which forwards
> messages via transport to a protected exchange 2007 server.
> to do this without getting backscatter, we need to check the
> recipients for validity on exchange server side in AD/LDA
Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 2:28 PM:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:19:52PM +0100, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
>
>> I intend to upgrade Postfix version 2.5.5 to 2.7.1.
>
> May as well use 2.7.2.
The OP sticks to Debian Stable and Backports packages Viktor, as I do.
We've waited almost 2 yea
Bruno Costacurta put forth on 12/1/2010 2:19 PM:
> Hello,
>
> I intend to upgrade Postfix version 2.5.5 to 2.7.1.
> Are there incompatibilities or specific path for upgrade ?
> Or any manual re-configuration to be done ?
I performed this exact backports upgrade about a week ago. As far as I
reca
Lukas put forth on 11/25/2010 9:38 AM:
> Hello,
>
> my question is about not sending "non-delivery notification". I want
> to tell postfix, that in case on non delivery it has not to send any
> messages.. Is it possible?
> It should be useful for mass mailing servers..
>
> --
> Lukas
> UAB nSof
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 2:26 PM:
> My objection was to your suggestion that a single postmap command
> is representative of Postfix performance. Given that there is easily
> a factor 100 difference in compile time versus query time, a single
> postmap command is typical only for mach
Will Fong put forth on 11/24/2010 1:51 PM:
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> You'd be better off with SliceHost (RackSpace) than HE, and SliceHost
>> sucks from a delivery standpoint.
>
> Hmm... Interesting. Delivery as in transactional or bu
Brian Evans - Postfix List put forth on 11/24/2010 7:54 AM:
> On 11/24/2010 7:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> -o transport_destination_rate_delay = 16s
>
> It's worth noting that transport_destination_rate_delay is implemented
> in qmgr and not the smtp client.
> The
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 1:35 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>>
>>> That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>>
>> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure loo
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 7:20 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>>
>>> That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>>
>>
601 - 700 of 1297 matches
Mail list logo
