On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:46:26PM +0200, Marco Rebsamen wrote:
search_base = DC=hive, DC=loc
query_filter = proxyAddresses=smtp:*...@unimatrix0.ch
result_attribute = proxyAddresses
What is that pesky * doing in your query filter!!!
It's a damn wildcard! I thought I would need it
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:58:37AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I think the problem is better solved in the delivery agent.
If you're using the postfix LMTP client, this might work:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#lmtp_generic_maps
/^(.*)@server\.example\.com$/$1
This will also
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:59:10AM -0700, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
postfix/smtp[28338]: certificate verification failed
for mail.x.org[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]:25: untrusted issuer
/C=US/O=Entrust.net/OU=www.entrust.net/CPS incorp. by ref. (limits
liab.)/OU=(c) 1999 Entrust.net
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:35:42PM -0400, Alex wrote:
mail.messaging.microsoft.com[65.55.88.22]:25: Matched
subject_CN=*.messaging.microsoft.com, issuer_CN=Cybertrust SureServer
Standard Validation CA
...
What is your TLS policy for this destination? The wildcard Subject Alt Name
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 08:58:35PM +1100, Winston Smith wrote:
The ldap_table(5) man page states a parameter 'tls_key' which is confusing.
This is a client private key.
Reading a bit more, there is a parameter 'tls_cert'
which shall point to a 'client certificate'.
This is a client cert.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:30:48PM -0400, Alex wrote:
I posted a message a few days ago, and still haven't been able to
figure this out. I believe this is a result of the certificate having
multiple DNS names and my TLS configuration not properly supporting
that. Could that be the case?
When
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:41:20PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Anyway, if you had the time and inclination and were able to get your hands on
a few units, it would be great to see some basic queue performance data from
you on SSD vs a disk based test rig you use.
All benchmarks are
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:35:14PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Consider using RSYNC to COPY the file from the hold queue to the
incoming queue, using the same file name.
Once it's there, will it take the same path as the initial mail (on
HOLD) would have taken?
No, because only
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:24:52PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
Note, if rsync propagates file permissions before it copies file contents,
an incomplete queue file could be picked up by the queue manager before
it is completely
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:21:48AM +0200, Bas Mevissen wrote:
The local(8) and virtual(8) servers are separately compiled
programs (the latter being a stripped down version of the former).
The header files in question are not used in the same compilation
unit, and so this suggestion is
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 06:39:07AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays
the mails to other servers.
Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I think it is will
be good to mount /var/spool/postfix on a tmpfs
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:16:04PM +0200, Bas Mevissen wrote:
Can you try what happens if you replace at
typedef struct LOCAL_STATE {
int level;/* nesting level, for logging */
DELIVER_ATTR msg_attr;/* message/recipient attributes */
DELIVER_REQUEST
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:17:52AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:14:17PM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
Given: A dedicated Postfix instance, configured to accept mails from
SASL authenticated users
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:14:01AM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
I can't seem to get postfix to match that header:
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Vos_Factures_arrivant_a_=C3=A9ch=C3=A9ance_-_FR0905249?=
with this /etc/postfix/header_check entry (PCRE):
/^(Subject:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:14:17PM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
Given: A dedicated Postfix instance, configured to accept mails from
SASL authenticated users. It seems that unlike access(5) maps, the
lookup for smtpd_sender_login_maps for addresses which contain
$recipient_delimiter is not
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:34:11PM +0200, mouss wrote:
if the exchange box wants j...@example.com, you can add
smtp_generic_maops entries to rewrite the address back:
j...@exchange.example.com j...@example.com
(This only works if the transport to exchange is smtp, as the prefix
of
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:24:19AM +0200, mouss wrote:
Jonathan Tripathy a ?crit :
[snip]
Now that's a cool feature!
However, I think I'll stick with giving the exchange server an
internal domain, like exchange.local, as this is what I'm familiar
with and I have already
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:31:36PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Also, only use proxymap for IPC based tables (ldap, mysql, pgsql, tcp, ...),
do not use proxymap for indexed files, cidr tables, pcre/regexp tables,
It depends on what the trade-offs are. I know of one user with
very
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:10PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
This is all documented Phil, please read more carefully, and if not sure
what something means, test your understanding in a test configuration that
does not handle live mail traffic.
Fortunately I have that test machine, now.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 03:37:02PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
One might suggest that CIDR is not a good fit for this even if stored
just once, an IPC based server that walks trees rather than lists
would be far more suitable...
I agree that the Postfix CIDR implementation achieves
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:44:00PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
You are working too hard if you are trying to optimize mailbox
domains to alias domains when there are not yet any mailboxes.
I *know* certain domains will never have mailboxes.
You can make these virtual alias domains, but if
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:10:32PM +, Thomas Arnett wrote:
Jeroen Geilman jeroen at adaptr.nl writes:
I completely agree that non-delivery to a (presumably dependable) MDA
should never error out, but I thought a soft solution would be better
than choosing the more extreme route (of
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:42:17PM -0700, motty.cruz wrote:
Hello,
I'm using two instances of postfix and lately I've been getting a lot of
deferred email, any suggestions how to stop accepting email that can't be
delivered. I do have local recipients table, server should not accept email
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 07:56:36PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
postfix/pipe[15018]: A481A3B: to=u...@example.com, relay=dovecot,
delay=0.32, delays=0.26/0.02/0/0.04, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (Command
died with signal 7: /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver)
postfix/pipe[15173]: A481A3B:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:49:11PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_domains
So what if a given domain is, instead, going to have addresses
forwarded back out to some other mail server?
If without rewriting, that's a relay domain. If addresses
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:36:48AM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
Hi,
I've been running postfix as my MTA for many years. Recently I
upgraded my main server and now I cannot send mail anymore.
The system is running Fedora 13, with postfix 2.7.0
(postfix-2.7.0-1.fc13.i686). My previous
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:47:12PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
The question remains: was this a deliberate change in 2.6 or 2.7? I
double checked and verified that postfix 2.5 generates the 'right'
domain names in the MAIL FROM, even without masquerade_domains being
set.
Postfix address
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:58:53PM +0200, Jon Kristensen wrote:
On 7/13/2010 5:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jon Kristensen:
cybersec:~# tail -f /var/log/mail.log
Jul 13 14:28:52 cybersec postfix/master[2422]: warning: process
/usr/lib/postfix/trivial-rewrite pid 2457 killed by signal 6
You
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:19:19PM +0200, Jon Kristensen wrote:
On 7/13/2010 6:07 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
perhaps your LDAP is using GNUTLS (it used to exit() in the library when
entropy was not available
The LDAP library does indeed use GNU TLS:
cybersec:~# ldd /usr/sbin/slapd | grep
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:17:49PM +0200, David Touzeau wrote:
smtp-amavis unix- - n - 7 smtp
-o smtp_data_done_timeout=1200
-o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes
-o disable_dns_lookups=yes
I notice people still using disable_dns_lookups=yes long after the
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 01:47:40PM +0200, St?phane MERLE wrote:
Hi,
My ISP (ovh) is complaining about my postfix servers doing wrong ARP
demand, do you have any idea of what can cause this in my postfix
configuration ?
188.165.55.92 : is one of the server ip (ip failover)
Thu Jul 8
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 03:58:12PM +0200, poindessous...@foncia.fr wrote:
... a special filter which protects smtp server.
Do you think I should ask to disable it ?
Yes, always. The SMTP inspection feature notoriously does more harm than good.
--
Viktor.
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:13:28PM +0200, Philipp Leusmann wrote:
Jul 9 16:07:00 s15277780 postfix/smtpd[18815]: NOQUEUE: reject:
RCPT from c-68-57-126-48.hsd1.va.comcast.net[68.57.126.48]:
450 4.3.2 silvi...@xxx.de: Recipient address rejected:
Try again later;
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 06:09:26PM +0200, St?phane MERLE wrote:
Hi,
I would have 2 questions :
- 1 what is the procedure for postfix when it try to send email to a
domain with no MX record ?
like : dig mx elv.enic.fr
Per 20+ year old SMTP standards it sends to the A
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, David Jacobson wrote:
We tried PCRE matches to no avail. Based on your request we tried to change
sasl_passwd lookup from hash to pcre (I'm no postfix guy, so have no idea if
this should work or not, but postfix restart didn't complain)
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:25:45PM +0200, Philipp Leusmann wrote:
Jul 9 19:15:25 s15277780 postfix/smtpd[22232]: dict_tcp_lookup: send: get
be...@xxx.de
Jul 9 19:15:25 s15277780 postfix/smtpd[22232]: dict_tcp_lookup: recv: 200
DEFER%20User%20over%20quota
Jul 9 19:15:25 s15277780
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 08:56:38PM +0200, Philipp Leusmann wrote:
It would be nice, if somebody else, also running a Debian Lenny (it's lenny,
not etch) system could verify this behavior.
Anybody here?
I will also reinstall postfix and try again.
If it is compiled with debugging
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:04:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Either your Postfix source is modified, miscompiled, the binaries are
corrupted, or CPU is mal-functioning.
Or he is running a Postfix version before 2.6.
Citing the access(5) manpage:
DEFER optional text...
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:37:08PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On 07/06/2010 01:10 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
So you have multiple exit points with non-uniform latency, but the more
severe congestion is downstream, so you want to load the exit points
uniformly. Yes, the solution
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:17:28PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ville Walveranta put forth on 7/8/2010 9:14 PM:
sender_dependent_relayhost_maps works except that the other settings
affecting the relay aren't conditionalized by the defined relayhost
maps. In this case the relayhost for the
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 03:58:54PM +0200, Magnus B?ck wrote:
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 at 13:30 CEST,
Jerry postfix-u...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:02:15 +0200
Victoriano Giralt victori...@uma.es articulated:
I can suggest the Spanish schema it has provisions
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:15:53AM +0200, Fran Garcia wrote:
Basically the schema should :
- Be OpenLDAP compatible
Not a problem.
- Allow multidomain
I don't know what this means.
- Host transports for each defined account / email address.
This is not a good idea. Avoid using LDAP for
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Matt Hayes wrote:
I've been watching this for a while and still not sure what could be
causing it it or if its a known issue, but thought I'd pass it along
here on the mailing list to see whatever one else thought.
I use recipient_bcc_maps to bcc
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 05:27:25PM +0300, Isaac Witmer wrote:
I'm doing a custom install, and one of the packages in the install is postfix.
Each time, it prompts me to select no configuration Local use etc.
just after the package has been downloaded and right before it has
been installed.
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:21:19AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On 06/30/2010 11:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
When sending mail via SMTP, Postfix randomizes the order of
equal-preference server IP addresses.
However, with SMTP connection caching enabled, the faster SMTP
server will get more
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:10:41PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
I realize that email delivery is not a trivial problem, but it seems
baffling that a seemingly simple task (fair volume-based load balancing
between transports) is so hard to achieve.
If you want to deliver the same number of
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:00:14PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
Having multiple exit points seems to improve the overall delivery speed -
this is true even right now, when distribution is skewed to the faster
server 4:1. My estimate is, a near-1:1 distribution would actually fix our
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 04:31:21PM -0400, Jeff Bernier wrote:
I'm sorry,
Was my question unclear? Or just too ridiculously simple for this group?
Neither, it was too general. You need to ask more specific questions.
My question is... Can this be easily done without disturbing Mailman list
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:22:47PM +0200, Fran Garcia wrote:
- Allow multidomain
I don't know what this means.
Hi Viktor, thanks for your reply.
This means be able to hold several virtual domains as destination.
Think of an ISP configuring a shared email platform for several
domains
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:42:07AM +0200, Eddy Ilg wrote:
warning: Connection concurrency limit exceeded: 11 from xx[w.x.y.z] for
service smtp
Butchered logs make it difficult to help you, the xx and w.x.y.z
need to be shown unaltered, so that they can be compared with the
configuration
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal
to the maximum
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:15:10AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
More info. This is how the queues always look, it's a very typical batch:
http://i.imgur.com/7MPIx.png
This graph has no scale, and would not be very interesting in any case.
Have you made attempt to sign-up for Yahoo's feedback
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow,
make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so
complex that they can only be resolved via a table scan.
Is this also true for one
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 08:37:14AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Avinash Pawar // Viva:
I want to give priority to each outbound email and as per priority email
will be sent.
There is no priority support in Postfix. Postfix uses a shared
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
/etc/postfix/transport:
server2.com:relay:[10.0.2.73]
/etc/postfix/master.cf:
relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
-o
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:43:57AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I don't see any easy fix to this.
A user has email forwarded from their address at domainA to their
address at domainB and also to their address at domainC, each running
on different mail servers (but maybe the same MTA software).
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:28 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html
BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY
For backwards compatibility with Postfix
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:55:47PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
Hello Wietse,
Thx a lot for your quick reply.
I thought that the client side concurrency was defined by:
1) lmtp_destination_concurrency_limit
Per nexthop, provided the transport is called lmtp, and not something
else. Do
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:06:58AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
fancy.cf:
...
search_base = dc=example, dc=com
query_filter = mail=%s
result_attribute = memberaddr
special_result_attribute = memberdn
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:12:23PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Note the above deprecated postmap -q syntax.
It is not deprecated, this never worked.
Index: proto/LDAP_README.html
*** proto/LDAP_README.html 6 Feb 2010 07:34:26 - 1.1.1.1
--- proto/LDAP_README.html 24 Jun
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:47:04PM +0300, Oguz Yilmaz wrote:
I just wanted to ask If Is there a way to disable loops back to
myself errors in a case which is not actually a real loop back.
Yes, by sending to a port other than port 25.
--
Viktor.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:47:12PM +0200, mouss wrote:
Victor Duchovni a ?crit :
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:20:23AM +0200, mouss wrote:
This mail is coming from postini. if you use postini, there's nothing
you can do with the envelope (and even if you do content filtering, you
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:39:02AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
That the real problem. I that case what option can be used to stop looking
into these files.
http://www.postfix.org/local.8.html
--
Viktor.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
From the mydestination docs:
a type:table lookup table is matched when a name matches a lookup key
(the lookup result is ignored).
All map files require a key result format. In the case of a map file
used as a list, such as
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:40:30PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
How would I do this for smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
That question makes no sense. ?Rephrase.
I was looking for a general solution. I picked an example. But I
apparently picked a bad example because the solution seems to
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:39:58PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual
delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for
smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport =
something else like dovecot? Can it
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 02:20:34PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:15 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
File names must start with / or ..
Thanks. It looks like the online documentation needs updating to match
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:20:23AM +0200, mouss wrote:
This mail is coming from postini. if you use postini, there's nothing
you can do with the envelope (and even if you do content filtering, you
shouldn't reject mail. it's too late).
Postini implement an SMTP proxy, not a store-and-forward
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all users. I have a
need do disallow processing of .forward for most user (default behavior)
however some of
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all users. I
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:00:56PM -0600, Patrick H. wrote:
I was attempting to set soft_bounce=yes on the smtpd service in master.cf
only to find that it didnt work. This was unexpected as the man pages
indicate otherwise. 'man 8 smtpd' lists soft_bounce under 'trouble shooting
controls'.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:34:45PM -0500, Jeff Sherk Forerunner Ministries
wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
Ok reading that doc, it looks like ${default_database_type} and
$default_database_type are identical then?
Almost: ${foo}bar is not the same as $foobar or ${foobar}.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
To compensate for this unwanted side effect of reduced concurrency
INCREASE the fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit
to 10-20 or so (or REDUCE
fragile_destination_concurrency_negative_feedback
to 1/10 or 1/20).
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:21:45PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
My email is very bursty - event updates and changes sent to many / most /
all subscribers. So then I should do this, I guess:
yahoo_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 20
yahoo_destination_rate_delay = 1s
I think
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:15:55PM -0500, Jeff Sherk Forerunner Ministries
wrote:
Ok, I have been reading and googling for two days now (docs on this site,
centos.org, and lots of other sites as well), and I just cannot figure out
how to accomplish making postfix (on one server,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:51:28PM -0500, Jeff Sherk Forerunner Ministries
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 8:21 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html#quick
Ok thanks Victor... I took a look at that, but I don't think that is what I
want... perhaps null client
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:03:44PM -0500, Jeff Sherk Forerunner Ministries
wrote:
But, how do I get it to send a username and password to authenticate on
that different server?
http://www.postfix.org/SOHO_README.html#client_sasl_enable
--
Viktor.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:17:40AM -0430, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
The plug-ins you speak of are a Debian-specific feature, they are not
part of the official Postfix release and not available on most platforms.
So most platforms statically link ldap support with postfix?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:01:14AM -0500, Adam wrote:
Good Morning,
Is there a way to hide the syserr as well as the path returned by a
pipe transport? For instance, I have virtual accounts and they are
handled by a custom transport. When a message is sent to a
non-existent user, the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view,
although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see
that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between instances and I
have my view
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
I recommend a different myhostname per port 25
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Right now this is a read-only implementation (like mysql/pgsql)
but it may be worthwhile to add update support. SQLite implements
locking internally. That would allow us to avoid the problems with
Postfix's external
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0100, Guy wrote:
Hi,
I've got a number of messages sitting in the deferred queue because the
user's maildir is overquota. Maildrop allows double the user's paid for
quota so if they've used up that much space I'm happy to immediately bounce
messages to
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:05:36PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
main.cf:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 2
fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 1
fragile_destination_rate_delay = 2s
Try:
# Change from 1 above
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:56:53PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Rui Francisco wrote:
We have postfix installed with virtual addresses. Due to the fact
that is not possible to postfix to process .forward files with the
current MDA, i would like to know
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:01:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
The dummy instance has myhostname changed and relayhost set to:
relayhost = [1.1.2.1]:25
The :25 is not needed and best avoided.
Problem is that dummy believes that destination is itself and loops
back to myself is logged. It
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:40:38AM -0400, Daniel Prieto wrote:
Here is my setup/plan. I have a Sendmail server and decided to migrate to
Postfix. I have a Staff group users and a Student group users in my present
Sendmail server. In the new Postfix server I only want to migrate/have Staff
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 07:30:44AM -0700, Andrew G. Grant wrote:
Jose,
Unfortunately, looking at another server OS doesn't help me to find the
answer to this question. But thank you for the suggestion.
I am still trying to find out how Apple OS X Server 10.6.3
(Darwin Kernel Version
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
It could be good to have a switch
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:01:16PM -0430, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
Of course, postfix support plug-ins
architecture, so, it is likely that you just need to add the ldap
part. As for Mac: I don't know exactly how to do it, but in the worst
of the cases, it would involved
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:41:12AM +0200, Dragan Zubac wrote:
I start both instances by issuing the following commands :
postfix -c /etc/postfix start
postfix -c /etc/postfix-second start
Each is stopped by issuing:
postfix -c $config_directory stop
or via the postmulti(1) wrapper
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:58:43PM +0200, j...@weitan.org wrote:
the qmgr first makes a lookup locally and if not successful he will
proceed to the relay-entries?
No. See
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:03:08PM +0200, Jan C. wrote:
Hi Victor,
I know this is a submission service and this was only for
illustration/testing purpose.
I just want to be sure how I can find a domain's TLS mapping from the
smtp_tls_policy_maps when transport mappings are involved.
TLS
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:33:12AM -0700, Andrew G. Grant wrote:
Hello,
I have configured the default install of Postfix (version 2.5.5) on
Apple OS X Server 10.6.3 (Darwin 10.3.0). Everything seems to run very
well with the exception that once authenticated, a user can claim to be
any
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:32:07AM -0700, Andrew G. Grant wrote:
Thank you Viktor. That does in fact stop the email if there is a mismatch.
However, now I cannot send anything as it tells me that I don't own the
email address I am trying to send to.
Can you tell me what it is checking to
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:00:08PM -0700, Terry Barnum wrote:
I noticed that macports has updated the postfix port to 2.7.1_0. I looked
through the release notes and didn't see any upgrade gotchas but thought I'd
ask here before pulling the trigger.
Download and read:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:28:15AM +0200, Stefan Foerster wrote:
$ postmulti -i postfix-out -x mailq
This is correct.
-Queue ID- --Size-- Arrival Time -Sender/Recipient---
1BCBD1DF86 2622 Mon Jun 7 03:02:34
boskop-svn-bounces+trac=trac.incertum@lists.incertum.net
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:41:51PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
I guess our documentation has never promised the use of system CAs when
CApath or CAfile are set, failing to override the system settings is
counter-intuitive, so I can support this change. We'll also have
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
The current default is:
address_verify_sender = $double_bounce_sender
The older (problematic) default
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:11:49PM +0200, Len Conrad wrote:
Is this bcc logic possible with postfix only?
No. Postfix has sender_bcc_maps and recipient_bcc_maps. There is no
support for adding bcc recipients via access(5) (and therefore policy
services won't work either). A milter may be able
901 - 1000 of 2372 matches
Mail list logo
