On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:27:44AM -0800, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
Hi
I was installing Postfix postfix-2.5.5 on Solaris. At the time of
compiling the Source with make I have defined the parameters (for changing
the default values of the following from /etc/ to /opt etc.)
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 12:23:48PM -0800, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
I have compiled it with the desired locations for all the parameters
mentioned in my email. Then with make install it prompted me for the
locations again and i have answered them changing the default ones. Then
it
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:10:50PM +0100, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
I fear that the problem is that for each session I can have an unsettled
number of messages sent over that session (It could be happen? If yes,
It could be depend on MTA settings?) other then an unsettled size of
SMTP
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:49:40PM -0800, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
Yes, of course, because your overrides are stored in main.cf, and main.cf
is in the compiled-in location. The correct main.cf location MUST be
compiled-in. DO NOT override it when installing the primary Postfix
instance on a
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:59:37PM +0100, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
Returning to my question, I'm trying to understand:
1) Once a client (or another MTA) establish a TCP connection with
listening port bounded by the SMTP daemon of Postfix, could happen that
more then one email messages are
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:52:45PM -0800, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
My makedefs.out does not say any thing about configurations i specified
with make files other than PCRE and here is the output
EXPORT = AUXLIBS=' -L/usr/lib -R/usr/lib -lpcre' CCARGS='
-Dstrcasecmp=fix_strcasecmp
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:34:10PM -0500, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
The php mail() command (on *nix) defaults to come in through the pickup
daemon (using the sendmail(1) command).
It can also be sent in via the smtpd daemon.
Intentionally send a message through your app and
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 02:21:31AM +0100, Rocco Scappatura wrote:
There is no evidence that sender-side connection re-use has any material
impact on your queues. If you do want to enforce such limits, they should
be applied selectively to just IP sources with poor reputations.
Indeed, it
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:58:42PM -0800, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
Thank You! I changed the way, i was using quotes and it did compile and
install successfully. But i saw these errors in my error file. Is it ok
to ignore them.
To reduce spurious noise: try gcc, or figure out which
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:17AM -0500, Doug Jaquays wrote:
- The pickup fifo has been deleted from /var/spool/postfix/public
Make sure $queue_directory contains a private/pickup fifo.
This is a /var/spool/postfix/public/pickup fifo, there is not a
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:52:45AM -0600, Matthew Hebert wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
reject_unknown_recipient_domain
reject_unverified_recipient
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 10:25:21AM +0200, Marc Silver wrote:
The tool is available at http://draenor.org/public/python/pqgrep.py
Should you find any bugs/problems, please mail me.
The regexp parser is IMHO too fuzzy for production use outside your
own environment. It will generated false
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 12:24:23PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
[ Wietse is it safe to move queue files active - hold - incoming in
a short time? Could some recipients be delivered twice by two delivery
agents in parallel (both deliveries starting after the second
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:05:41PM -0600, Matthew Hebert wrote:
Thanks for your assistance.
We have implemented the changes you requested. We still have have
time out issues.
We try the following:
When I try to telnet server 25
Trying XXX.XXX.XXX...
telnet: Unable to connect to
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 06:58:52PM -0500, sean darcy wrote:
I followed the instructions on
http://www.wormly.com/blog/2008/11/05/relay-gmail-google-smtp-postfix/
to create your own certificate to use with google.
You DO NOT need your own TLS-client certificate to submit mail to Google,
and
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:42:33AM -0800, Damon Miller wrote:
In case anyone else hits this problem, my issue was as follows:
1. 'owner_request_special' was enabled (by default)
2. My MySQL-based 'alias_maps' succeeded for all addresses, including
those with an 'owner-' prefix. This
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:02:47AM -0500, Doug Jaquays wrote:
Does:
# postkick public pickup W
move mail out of the queue in a more timely fashion?
It does not seem to be anymore effective than mailq -q.
Is there any more verbose logging that I can enable for this situation?
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:54:39PM -0200, Clodoaldo Pinto Neto wrote:
The To: header I'm sending appears like this in the log:
Feb 5 21:27:03 centos5151155 postfix/cleanup[4595]: B1AD3FF9A7:
warning: header To:
=?utf-8?q?D=C3=A9ste_Sobrenome_Grande_P=C3=B4cas_da_Silva_=3Cclodoaldo=5F?=?
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Here's your error: unable to verify the first certificate. Did you add your
CA certificate to your CA certificate store ca-bundles.crt (in your case)?
In what sense is that an error? He's got a private-label CA cert, why
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:00:31AM -0500, Doug Jaquays wrote:
Just to not leave this open-ended. I decided to just switch to
Pear::Mail and use that to send directly to our production mail server.
I appreciate all of the help provided, but for the small scope of what
Postfix was doing and
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:49:07AM +0100, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009 Victor Duchovni wrote:
Configure your Postgres database to use a LATIN-1 encoding. WIth this
you get a single-byte per character encoding and all byte patterns
are valid strings.
The problem
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 02:49:42PM -0200, Pablo Scheri wrote:
mx.trendargentina.com.ar. 0INA10.0.0.207
mx.trendargentina.com.ar. 0INA10.0.0.208
postconf | grep dns
disable_dns_lookups = no
lmtp_host_lookup = dns
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:13:17PM +0200, Tolga wrote:
Who can't use the certificate?
I, when I try with Thunderbird from another location.
Well, it is Thunderbird that needs to extend its list of trusted
CAs not Postfix. No amount of tweaking the Postfix server will
make Thunderbird trust
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 09:11:43AM -0800, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
mx.trendargentina.com.ar. 0INA10.0.0.208
mx.trendargentina.com.ar. 0INA10.0.0.207
What this says to me is every time Postfix requests the MX for
trendargentina.com.ar the name server software will
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:37:41PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
smtpd_timeout = ${stress?10s}${stress:300s}
smtpd_hard_error_limit = ${stress?2}${stress:20}
I guess disabling reverse DNS lookups under stress is too drastic. It
would certainly not help folks with reject_unknown_client, even if
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Chris St Denis wrote:
Anyway, on to the problems. How do I deal with log entries like this. A
queue ID is created, but nothing ever happens to it. There is no reject
There was one valid recipient, but the mail transaction was not
completed.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:44:12PM -0500, Glen B wrote:
I'm not asking for an LDA to deploy. Are you suggesting that I review
Dovecot's LDA as an example of how to use a pipe transport? I'm writing a
LDA which will be DB native and want some experience based input on which
method of
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:41:33PM -0800, Chris St Denis wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Chris St Denis wrote:
Anyway, on to the problems. How do I deal with log entries like this.
A queue ID is created, but nothing ever happens
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 01:01:49PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
New logs with reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org added to main.cf
eb 8 12:49:52 kartero postfix/smtpd[6465]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
web57902.mail.re3.yahoo.com[68.142.236.95]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 01:23:43PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
Don't use ISP DNS servers that fabricate A records.
I'm not using our ISP's DNS , I'm using OpenDNS, I'm using OpenDNS
since way back it's only now that I'm getting this strange behavior in
my SMTP server.
You should not use
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:55:28PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
Where is the best place to put the DNS caching resolver? in the NAT
device? or in the Mail Server itself?
What kind of NAT device is this? Is it capable of running a non-forwarding
DNS cache? If the cache in question has sufficiently
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And it will
break MUA driven thread handling
- very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as received mail
- even then, MUAs have heuristics to cope with such
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:37:20PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:55:28PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
Where is the best place to put the DNS caching resolver? in the NAT
device
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
No, I was referring to the Sent folder, populated by the MUA, either
in a local disk or using IMAP.
I know some people clever-enough to set Sent == Inbox, yes this is not
very common.
I personally have rules that tag outgoing mail into
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:38:31PM -0500, Manuel Mely wrote:
Hi,
I'm configuring postfix to use LDAP as backend db. I have to deal
with something that i don't know how to do.
For example, i have this conf file:
server_host = localhost
server_port = 389
bind = yes
bind_dn =
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0800, Jeff Weinberger wrote:
I am trying to figure out the best way to map one domain to another with
the same users...precisely the behavior I am trying to achieve is: when
mail is sent (from outside, or from another user within my postfix
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:44:09PM +, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
Good morning,
I'm using spamassassin thru amavisd. I also have a bunch of spamtraps
(addresses that were never used by persons, but that receive spam
regularly) feeding automatically its bayes filter. Sometimes I get some
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:00:12PM -0500, Terry Carmen wrote:
Don't delay, if your spamtrap addresses are well chosen, have
never existed as valid email addresses, and are unlikely to be mistyped
accidentally by a human sender, you can just REDIRECT all mail for
a spamtrap address to that
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:41:49AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
We currently use postfix as a part of our overall product, which means that
it ends up being packaged inside our own RPM (or deb, etc) packages, and
then redeployed when our product is installed. One thing I've noticed
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
You have not read PACKAGE_README.
This is really the answer. I missed this document, things should work fine
with it.
One minor nit in the document, it uses xargs to collect a file list for
tar, but the file list may be
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 01:17:08PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
You have not read PACKAGE_README.
This is really the answer. I missed this document, things should work fine
with it.
One minor nit in the document
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:13:55PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
One minor nit in the document, it uses xargs to collect a file list for
tar, but the file list may be too long for one command invocation:
% cd INSTALL_ROOT
% rm -f SOMEWHERE/outputfile
% find . \! -type d
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:59:02PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:13:55PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
One minor nit in the document, it uses xargs to collect a file list for
tar, but the file list may be too long for one command invocation:
% cd
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:19:26PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, February 09, 2009 12:57 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/PACKAGE_README.html
And just to confirm, the steps here worked beautifully, thank you
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 03:41:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It would be nice if there was someway for it to recognize it was already
built with a prefix, so no need to go down multiple layers. But I have an
easily working solution to it. :)
It's good to hear that the instructions
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 09:43:49PM -0500, Xn Nooby wrote:
I have been trying to figure out how to get Postfix to not append
localhost in to the From: field. I am sending email mostly between
two local users, using RHEL5/Squirrelmail/Postfix/Dovecot.
When I send an email from
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:15:06AM +0100, Juergen P. Meier wrote:
If everyone would use SAV, the ammount of SMTP traffic in the Internet
would *double*. I bet most heavy duty mailssystems don't scale double.
An address probe is MUCH cheaper to process than a message. Address
probe results are
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:29:28AM +, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
Don't delay, if your spamtrap addresses are well chosen, have
never existed as valid email addresses, and are unlikely to be mistyped
accidentally by a human sender, you can just REDIRECT all mail for
a spamtrap address to
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:43:15PM +, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
What I'm trying is dealing with the spam sent for a single address. My
idea is the following:
1) Spammer sends emails to existing users and spamtraps;
2) Normal users email is frozen for 2 to 5 minutes;
3) Spamtraps are
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 06:55:11PM +, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
Victor Duchovni escreveu:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:43:15PM +, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
What I'm trying is dealing with the spam sent for a single address. My
You still have not understood what REDIRECT
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:23:45PM -0500, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
machines that send FROM: the local address but TO: somewhere else I think I
need postfix to serve as a relay for those machines.
I think I can fix it by setting
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/remotebranches
BEFORE
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:55:31AM -0500, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
At 11:04 PM 2/10/2009, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
At 05:24 PM 2/10/2009, mouss wrote:
While I can readily create a user b...@example.com, who has a default
maildir location for that sql of 'example.com/bob/' I can't quite
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:27:07PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
When sending to nashfinch.com I get:
Feb 11 16:23:36 mail postfix/smtp[22382]: setting up TLS connection to
nashfinch.com.s5a1.psmtp.com[64.18.4.10]:25
Feb 11 16:23:37 mail postfix/smtp[22382]: Trusted TLS connection
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:05:56PM +0200, ddaas wrote:
Feb 3 14:45:57 softexp postfix/smtpd[23394]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[117.87.x.x]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host
[117.87.x.x] blocked using sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org;
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Silas Boyd-Wickizer wrote:
Hello, I'm doing some experiments with a synthetic benchmark and
postfix. My current postfix configuration can deliver ~3000
msg/sec to 1000 virtual mailboxes; however, the system (16
core/4x4 AMD opteron) is ~90% idle.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:28:40PM -0500, Silas Boyd-Wickizer wrote:
With 16 logical CPUs, in this configuration you'll find your CPU load
to be 1/16th of the theoretical maximum + overhead. Your report of 10%
is about right.
The system has 16 physical execution units: four quad core AMD
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:24:25PM +0100, mouss wrote:
post...@corwyn.net a ?crit :
And a last betterer/simpler way to do it.
SELECT
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:51:20AM -0700, Curtis wrote:
So, on a box that I know has nothing else feeding into the maildrop
queue, it would be safe to skip the step of dropping it in the idle
queue of a second instance (on the same filesystem) and running
postsuper -s to get a properly named
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 08:46:51AM -0700, Curtis wrote:
Perfect. Does the pickup command have a trigger like qmgr that I can
use with postkick to get the queue file picked up from the maildrop
queue immediately? I'm guessing not since there's no mention of it in
the man page, but I thought
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:33:57PM -0500, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
At 04:28 AM 2/12/2009, mouss wrote:
recipient_delimiter works out of the box. there is no need to change
your tables, your sql statements nor add users.
The problem is I don't know what the out of the box behavior should be.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:03:31AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/13/2009, gianluca...@interfree.it (gianluca...@interfree.it) wrote:
Is it possible relay mail trhough smstps under postfix?
Assuming you meant smtps, you can enable this in master.cf, by
uncommenting these lines (I'm
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:53:23PM -0500, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Carver Banks wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I am seeing weird bounces on my postfix server and can't quite figure out
why...
It looks like it is failing while passing the mail off to a spam appliance,
but from the
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 03:20:55PM +0100, mouss wrote:
Finally I would like to deny message delivery to my mail server.. It
should suffice to unset relay_domains or it is too restrictive doing
so?
to disable local delivery, check the FIREWALL README.
I think this means:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:14:21AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
hash == berkly db? that would mean its a poor choice by postfix itself
There are plenty platforms where the on-disk format of Berkeley DB
database files is stable across many operating system releases.
And the only sensible
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 02:19:19PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
bharathan kailath wrote:
i understood
but why two folders 'defer' and 'deferred'! using OpenSuse 10.3
thanks
deferred stores the reason why the message is in defer.
The other way around, but the idea is right. The defer queue
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 02:20:39PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
/etc/postfix/main.cf
check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/random.pcre
/etc/postfix/random.pcre
/^(.)(.*)/FILTER smtp$1:$1$2
Regexp recipient lookups are keyed by the full user address, and the
character-set
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 07:17:14PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
So in summary: either will do, I currently don't have strong arguments
to prefer one over the other. Perhaps somebody from the Postfix side
can show a preference.
If the proxy is not configured to do content-dependent selective
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 07:02:41PM +, Daniel C wrote:
Message #1
---
Received: from localhost (homer.mydomain.com [10.0.32.13])
by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561804498EF
for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:35:34AM +, Daniel C wrote:
As for Postfix, it has to be used
No, this is wrong, the postfix user must not be the owner the virtual
mailboxes, and should not be used by the IMAP server to access them.
Fix your configuration to avoid this problem.
by courrier-imap
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
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 location
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. Dovecot
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 very many. You
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:41:07PM -0800, Linux Advocate wrote:
i have been thinking of using sorbs instead of spamhaus because sorbs
allows sites with upto 100k user to connect to them but with spamhaus
u are limited to 100users max. Sorbs has a detection rate of about 68%
and i was thinking
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Joseph L. Casale
jcas...@activenetwerx.com wrote:
Is it possible to hold mail destined to only certain users in a queue
until I then
release it manually?
Direct mail for those users to the retry
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:48:12PM -0600, Nick Geron wrote:
So as root or my limited rights postfix user this works:
#postmap -q j...@example.com ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap/aliases.cf
j...@example.com
You only show a test running as root, not postfix. What versions of
Postfix and OpenLDAP are
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:30:51PM -0600, Nick Geron wrote:
Well, I have found my problem. I probably should have mentioned earlier
(how many times has than appeared on this list?) that ldap is used on this
system for local user authentication, meaning pam/nss are tied into ldap.
I
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:34:26PM -0600, Nick Geron wrote:
This is an OpenLDAP API design issue. The OpenLDAP library (at least up
to version 2.3) has a single global SSL_CTX object, that is initialized
just once by the first call that creates an SSL-protected LDAP connection.
All requests
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:50:49PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
We have just started doing business with a firm that uses an ironport
device, and discovered that postfix will not issue a STARTTLS to that
host, whether it's listed in tls_policy_maps with may
or encrypt protocols=TLSv1
The policy
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:50:07PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:50:49PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
We have just started doing business with a firm that uses an ironport
device, and discovered that postfix will not issue a STARTTLS to that
host
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:03:24PM +0100, Manuel P??gouri??-Gonnard wrote:
Hmm, isn't it twice the same paragrah (or two versions of it)?
May I suggest to update the description of smtpd_tls_CA_file
By the way, I'm not sure still whether I understand correctly smptd_CA_path.
Would the
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:33:42AM -0500, Nick Smith wrote:
Please excuse me if this has been discussed before,
i tried searching the archives and the documentation
and google and the info seems a bit dated and incomplete
and for exchange 5.5.
We have an exchange server 2003 (not sbs) at
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Magnus B?ck wrote:
Is there a way to solve this on server1? I mean adding recipients
somewhere to the mail header so server2 knows where to deliver? I
already tried to set enable_original_recipient to yes - in that
case a X-Original-To: is added
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:04:37PM +0200, vtzan wrote:
I have setup Postfix LDAP (postfix-2.5.4-2.sasl2.vda.rhel5) on Centos 5.2
x64 and all features that i have configured are working great EXCEPT from
REMOTE LDAP SERVER.
I have configured OpenLDAP Server to some other ip on the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:12 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
Note, the OpenLDAP API design issue is resolved with OpenLDAP 2.4.
With OpenLDAP 2.4 it is possible to set the TLS
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:56:34PM -0500, Adam Rosi-Kessel wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote, on 2/27/2009 12:50 PM:
I'm running postfix on server and client, forcing TLS on both.
No matter what I do, I can't seem to solve Untrusted TLS connection
established to [...]:587: TLSv1 with cipher ADH
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:35:39AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
If you are unable to test this patch at this time, I can do some testing on
my systems using OpenLDAP 2.4.15 Postfix 2.5.6.
The patch is working for me, please confirm that it is working for you
also. It is simple enough
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:24:32AM -0500, Rich wrote:
Has any ever integrated Lotus Domino Ldap with postfix and used it for
authentication?
If LDAP is providing user login via PAM/nss, you can just use
saslauthd -a pam
if you want to verify password hashes of non system users, you
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Harold Paulson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I have a number of messages in my deferred queue that are destined for an
offsite alias, which is currently unreachable. I have changed the alias to
point to a local
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 05:48:35PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
Plus addressing is
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 03:49:18AM +, Daniel C wrote:
I just changed the owner of the IMAP folder and assigned Postfix and
courier-authlib to use this new user. It has a UID and GID of 1000.
What user does amavis run as? What you say that Postfix uses this new
user, what do you mean by
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:44:21PM +0800, Wouter van Marle wrote:
Hi list,
From me a question that seems to be asked now and then here, but I could
not find any answers even on whether this is possible in the first place.
I would like to be able to prioritise outgoing e-mail so they do not
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:25:55AM +0800, Wouter van Marle wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:18 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:59:31PM +0800, Wouter van Marle wrote:
Use a custom transport for these messages with a low concurrency limit,
You mean like
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:17:55AM -0500, Erik Morton wrote:
I am assuming that I should
have a pipe process running. Is that not the case?
Only during a delivery and shortly thereafter, unless pipe(8) exits
with a fatal error. On a low-volume server pipe(8) may not be running
at any given
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:19:50AM -0500, Erik Morton wrote:
Thanks. I am running with -D (strace) and -v enabled and I'm not seeing
anything fatal or related to a pipe process.
i've defined my filter in master.cf like so:
filterunix - n n - 10 pipe -v
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:07:50AM -0500, Erik Morton wrote:
I guess I only expected logging output because I can't see to figure out
why the following:
filterunix - n n - 10 pipe -v flags=Rq
user=my_user argv=/usr/bin/receiver -f ${sender} -- ${recipient}
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 07:30:39PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
With OpenLDAP 2.4 it is possible to set the TLS properties for
a particular LDAP connection (not just global properties), and to
associate a new OpenLDAP managed TLS context for the connection via the
new
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:29:29AM -0200, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de
Matem?tica wrote:
Mar 2 18:42:02 smtp postfix/smtpd[15652]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
r190-134-zz-xx.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy[190.134.zz.
xx]: 450 4.7.1 dest...@cmat.edu.uy: Recipient address rejected:
Greylisting in
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:31:21AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/4/2009, Robert A. Ober (ro...@robob.com) wrote:
# dovecot -n command gives a clean output of the changed settings. Use it
# instead of copypasting this file when posting to the Dovecot mailing
list.
#
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:35:38AM -0200, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de
Matem?tica wrote:
The user was not relaying: mail was sent to a domain you are responsible
for, so this was not blocked by reject_unauth_destination.
Well... I don't think so, maybe I am not understandig
1 - 100 of 2372 matches
Mail list logo
