Re: PATCH: "postfix start" master initialization status
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:00:58PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > This works around a problem on some Linux systems. These don't use > "postfix status" to find out if the mail system still runs. Fixed. # /etc/init.d/postfix status * postfix/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 26257 [ ok ] > Even worse, they refuse to start Postfix > when the problem is fixed, claiming that Postfix is still running! Fixed as well. > The feature patch addresses only the start-up side of the issue. > Location on the source code mirrors: > > postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120206-master-monitor-patch > postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120206-master-monitor-patch.sig I had to use the attached patch (on top of the above) to avoid erroring out during compile. FYI. The patch behaves as expected. postfix start waits for master to initialize before returning with the correct return code. There is no noticeable delay during startup with a correct configuration. Differences are within margin of error. There is less incentive to start master directly. Thanks again. -- Eray Aslan --- src/master/Makefile.in 2012-01-22 17:55:16.0 +0200 +++ src/master/Makefile.in 2012-03-07 11:10:55.255442235 +0200 @@ -2,10 +2,12 @@ SRCS = master.c master_conf.c master_ent.c master_sig.c master_avail.c \ master_spawn.c master_service.c master_status.c master_listen.c \ master_proto.c single_server.c multi_server.c master_vars.c \ - master_wakeup.c master_flow.c master_watch.c mail_flow.c + master_wakeup.c master_flow.c master_watch.c mail_flow.c \ + master_monitor.c OBJS = master.o master_conf.o master_ent.o master_sig.o master_avail.o \ master_spawn.o master_service.o master_status.o master_listen.o \ - master_vars.o master_wakeup.o master_watch.o master_flow.o + master_vars.o master_wakeup.o master_watch.o master_flow.o \ + master_monitor.o LIB_OBJ= single_server.o multi_server.o trigger_server.o master_proto.o \ mail_flow.o event_server.o HDRS = mail_server.h master_proto.h mail_flow.h
Re: [OT] Re: found a "bug" on postfix 2.9.1
Eliezer Croitoru: > On 07/03/2012 02:33, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Eliezer Croitoru: > >> i dont care about any init scripts on whatever else then when there is > >> this specific problem of mismatching binding an ip that dosnt exist to > >> be checked using the "postfix check" method on terminal and not only on > >> log. > > > > Sorry, only the master daemon knows that it can't access the IP address. > ok but it wont stop using "postfix stop" When the master daemon is not running: # postfix stop postfix/postfix-script: fatal: the Postfix mail system is not running What result did you expect? Wietse
Re: PATCH: "postfix start" master initialization status
On 07/03/2012 03:00, Wietse Venema wrote: I have uploaded a feature patch that changes "postfix start" so that it returns after the master daemon has initialized. This works around a problem on some Linux systems. These don't use "postfix status" to find out if the mail system still runs. Instead they just make up something and claim that Postfix runs even when the master has aborted. Even worse, they refuse to start Postfix when the problem is fixed, claiming that Postfix is still running! The feature patch addresses only the start-up side of the issue. Location on the source code mirrors: postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120206-master-monitor-patch postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120206-master-monitor-patch.sig thank you very very much for the effort. Eliezer It is up to Linux maintainers to use "postfix status" properly so that the user receives correct information about whether or not Postfix is running, instead of providing bogus status information, and refusing to start a mail system that is down. Wietse
Re: PATCH: "postfix start" master initialization status
Eray Aslan: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:00:58PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > This works around a problem on some Linux systems. These don't use > > "postfix status" to find out if the mail system still runs. > > Fixed. Thanks. Also for the other fixes. To address Victor's question, there is a new "don't go into the background" option (master -f) that restores the old behavior. Wietse
Keeping a copy of all mail, and then removing headers from outbound
All our internal machine generated emails are sent through our Postfix server (which is only used for outbound mail), and then relayed out to a third party MTA. To be able to integrate all outbound mail to other services (like CRM), we are adding a few headers (customer number etc) to the mail that is delivered to Postfix. What I'm trying to achieve is for Postfix to deliver a copy to a local IMAP account, and then remove our internal/private headers before passing the mail on to the relay host. The idea is for some custom software to read the copy from the IMAP account, using the interal/private headers for integration with other systems. Delivering a copy of all mail is easy using the always_bcc option, but adding header_checks, with an IGNORE instruction for our internal headers, removes the headers _before_ the local copy is delivered. In other words: The headers are removed from both our bcc-copy and the one forwarded to the relayhost. I understand this is because the cleanup is done before the delivery, but I don't see how I can configure this to achieve the result I need. Any tips is highly appreciated. :) -- Lars Preben Sørsdahl lars.preben.no
Re: Keeping a copy of all mail, and then removing headers from outbound
Lars Preben S?rsdahl: > All our internal machine generated emails are sent through our Postfix > server (which is only used for outbound mail), and then relayed out to a > third party MTA. To be able to integrate all outbound mail to other > services (like CRM), we are adding a few headers (customer number etc) to > the mail that is delivered to Postfix. > > What I'm trying to achieve is for Postfix to deliver a copy to a local IMAP > account, and then remove our internal/private headers before passing the > mail on to the relay host. The idea is for some custom software to read the > copy from the IMAP account, using the interal/private headers for > integration with other systems. > > Delivering a copy of all mail is easy using the always_bcc option, but > adding header_checks, with an IGNORE instruction for our internal headers, > removes the headers _before_ the local copy is delivered. In other words: > The headers are removed from both our bcc-copy and the one forwarded to the > relayhost. > > I understand this is because the cleanup is done before the delivery, but I > don't see how I can configure this to achieve the result I need. > > Any tips is highly appreciated. :) Use smtp_header_checks=pcre:/path/to/file to remove the headers from outbound mail. If you also use LMTP or SMTP to deliver local IMAP accounts, one extra step is needed. I'm not going to complicate the solution if this step is not needed. Wietse
Re: PATCH: "postfix start" master initialization status
Wietse Venema: > Eray Aslan: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:00:58PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > This works around a problem on some Linux systems. These don't use > > > "postfix status" to find out if the mail system still runs. > > > > Fixed. > > Thanks. Also for the other fixes. I have revised the patch so it doesn't break backwards compatibility. You now need to specify "-w" to get the new behavior (instead of "-f" to turn it off). I think this is better. This version should be final. Attached is a delta relative to yesterday's patch. The updated patch will be on source code mirrors at: postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-master-monitor-patch postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-master-monitor-patch.gz Wietse master-monitor-patch-delta.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
--On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:05 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Quanah Gibson-Mount: --On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:11 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Hi Wietse, I noted in my initial email why this is not desirable solution. I ignored your objection, because it made no sense to me. I have learned that is it better to ignore things that make no sense to me, than to fight them in a debate. I'm not sure why it made no sense to you. It's quite well explained and logical. ># postconf -# policy_time_limit > > After: > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > # policy_time_limit = foo > # policy_time_limit = bar The problem with this approach is that if you later re-enable the policy, it will not remove the #'d out entries. Over time, you could theoretically end up with numerous #'d entries for the parameter. Sorry, feature requests based on theoretical scenarios do not convince me. This is most definitely not a theoretical scenario. In fact, it is quite trivial to produce. In addition, the postconf -# option is at best a hack. Even the man page notes there's no "reverse operation", which clearly illustrates it is at best a hack. It was changes made to postfix that created the entire issue that now exists in the first place. I do not think it unreasonable or something that makes "no sense" to ask that a method for fixing an issue that was created because of changes you made to postfix be implemented in a future release. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Re: submission users still rejected by zen
Hi, >> far-reaching solution. I've used tc and cbq for QoS a long time in the >> past, but not sure I could now figure out how to use it to throttle >> SMTP traffic now. > > If you want a global solution to the parallel client connection problem, > this is it: > > smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=1 > > This limits the number of parallel connections a client is allowed to > open to Postfix. This 'might' unduly slow delivery from legit non bulk > senders as well so you may need to play with different values until you > achieve the desired results. If this technique turns out to not be > suitable... > > Simply add CC's and other bulk sender IP addresses and/or subnets to the > table we discussed earlier in the thread, in the context of the postfwd > policy daemon or iptables rules. Okay, great. I don't think I understood your previous post regarding the IP list and the policy daemon. I'll have to research that further. All the connections from everbridge.net were from the same IP. >> Mar 6 18:05:34 mail01 postfix/error[13144]: 59C26156326F: >> to=<01...@example.com>, relay=none, delay=557, delays=439/118/0/0.11, >> dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: lost >> connection with 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] while receiving the initial >> server greeting) > > So amavis is failing. The above should fix this. > >> I'm pretty sure it was related to that, as I haven't had these types >> of messages in quite a while. I had to increase the >> default_process_limit back to 200 and forcibly restart amavisd, after >> which it delivered all the messages without further issues. > > Please note that increasing default_process_limit also increases > smtpd_client_connection_count_limit to half that value, if you haven't > manually specified a value for the latter. I.e. 200 processes equals > 100 connections per client IP. Lucky for you bulk senders don't > configure their outbounds with unlimited parallel connections, or > increasing process limit wouldn't help you, but could make things worse. I think I made the mistake of possibly combining two issues in the same email. I had previously adjusted the default_process_limit to 300 because connections to the server were timing out, not because amavisd was dying or regarding the bulk senders issue. I believe then you asked to report back the minimum value that was possible for this setting, which is why I set it to 100. I then had the amavisd issue, and combined with removing the reject_rbl from smtpd_recipient_restrictions and only having it in postscreen, I thought setting the default_process_limit back to the default of 200 was reasonable. This was also all on the same host. Well, actually two hosts; the primary and secondary MX for my domain. Hopefully that's more clear now. The secondary is definitely more idle than the first, even though they are equally weighted. > How many Postfix servers are in your MX farm? When you make changes to > one host slowing down client delivery, smart bulk senders will simply > avoid your slow MX and hammer the others in the MX pool. When you make > a change to one that slows clients down you need to make the same change > to all of them. Yes, understood. There are two MXs for the domain that has the bulk mailing overload problem and the one I'm adjusting the default_process_limit. There is one MX for the domain that has the always_bcc issue and the submission port auth issue. > Try setting smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=1 on all your postfix MX > hosts and see how that works for a day or two. If legit non-bulk > clients are seeing too much delay, bump the value up in increments of 1 > until you get legit clients moving as they should while still preventing > bulk-mailers from bogging you down. That's awesome. I will read about that further, but very happy to learn this option exists. That is the option I was trying to describe all along. Thanks for reading all this. Alex
Re: submission users still rejected by zen
Hi, >>> -o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject > >> Isn't this effectively what I already have? I must be missing >> differences somewhere? > > You're missing a recipient_restrictions override. Without one, your > submission connections are subject to dnsbl checks when auth fails. > This is why you saw that ZEN rejection. You should _never_ check > submission connections against dnsbls. ZEN contains the PBL, which > contains consumer dynamic IP ranges. Yes, understood, and I didn't realize I was doing that. I've also just heard back from the user, and her laptop was set to port 25, not 587, which explains why all her email wasn't being rejected. Only the mail that was sent when she was a road warrior and not on one of the trusted networks from mynetworks. Although not using the submission port seems to be the root of the issue, my submission entry in master.cf is now this: submission inet n - n - - smtpd -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject -o milter_macro_daemon_name=ORIGINATING -o receive_override_options=$submission_overrides -o syslog_name=postfix/submission And have added submission_overrides = no_unknown_recipient_checks, no_address_mappings, no_header_body_checks as per rob0's recommendation. Can you confirm this is correct? >> submission inet n - n - - smtpd >> -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt >> -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes >> -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject >> -o milter_macro_daemon_name=ORIGINATING >> -o syslog_name=postfix/submission > >> Just to be clear, I'm missing no_address_mappings in the >> receive_override_options in order to prevent the duplicated always_bcc >> mail, correct? > > I'm not sure on that one. Someone else will need to chime in. Should I post something separate for this? >> I think I'm still going to have to do more research on finding that >> right default_process value. > > There is a problem here. You have found a knob you can turn and get > something like the result you want. But, this is not the right knob to > be turning to address your load problem because it simply masks the real > problem. Yes, I'm now working on addressing the bulk mailer issue, and have adjusted the process limit back to the default. > Thus, the permanent solution is to dramatically slow down the bulk > mailers. I've given you one method in the previous email that should do > exactly that, instantly, while keeping default_process_limit=100. Yes, that is what I've been trying to do all along! Thanks again, Alex
Re: Relay for many local systems, but restrict internet forwarding?
Hi My name is Kenny and I am trying to set up postfix (as a Smarthost - relays to another system) whereby all internal systems defined in mynetworks should be allowed to send mail locally to .gov and only a handful of systems should be allowed to send to offsite email addresses. I am using the default main.cf with just a few changes - added networks for mynetworks and added the relay host to forward mail to. From one of your earlier online posts, you suggested to do the following: J.> J.> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/allow_out, reject_unauth_destination, permit J.> J.> and in /etc/postfix/allow_out: J.> J.> permitted.IP OK J.> other.permitted.IPOK J.> permitted.IP/range OK J.> J.> The reject_unauth_destination check AFTER the client access check yielded no J.> positive OK or REJECT means that any other internal or external clients can J.> only send mail to authorized destinations, i.e., recipients/domains postfix J.> controls mail for. I tried this and did not get my desired results; whatever IP I put into allow_out either allows all or rejects all mail but I do not get the split I am looking for. Are there any other parameters I need to set in main.cf to make this happen? Hope you are out there...and thanks, Kenny -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Relay-for-many-local-systems%2C-but-restrict-internet-forwarding--tp33056289p33458446.html Sent from the Postfix mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: ># postconf -# policy_time_limit > > After: > > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > # policy_time_limit = foo > # policy_time_limit = bar The problem with this approach is that if you later re-enable the policy, it will not remove the #'d out entries. Over time, you could theoretically end up with numerous #'d entries for the parameter. This is most definitely not a theoretical scenario. In fact, it is quite trivial to produce. In addition, the postconf -# option is at best a hack. Even the man page notes there's no "reverse operation", which clearly illustrates it is at best a hack. ...snip... An aside in this: why is this so important for you? What's wrong with using a text editor to clean up main.cf? Until this thread came along, I didn't even know you could use postconf to edit main.cf; I've always used a text editor. And I consider that a plus since it lets me add comments and group things in a logical fashion. -- Larry Stone lston...@stonejongleux.com
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
Larry Stone: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > >>> ># postconf -# policy_time_limit > >>> > > >>> > After: > >>> > > >>> > /etc/postfix/main.cf: > >>> > # policy_time_limit = foo > >>> > # policy_time_limit = bar > >>> > >>> The problem with this approach is that if you later re-enable the > >>> policy, it will not remove the #'d out entries. Over time, you could > >>> theoretically end up with numerous #'d entries for the parameter. > > > > This is most definitely not a theoretical scenario. In fact, it is quite > > trivial to produce. In addition, the postconf -# option is at best a hack. > > Even the man page notes there's no "reverse operation", which clearly > > illustrates it is at best a hack. > > ...snip... > > An aside in this: why is this so important for you? What's wrong with > using a text editor to clean up main.cf? Until this thread came along, I > didn't even know you could use postconf to edit main.cf; I've always used > a text editor. And I consider that a plus since it lets me add comments > and group things in a logical fashion. Don't worry about it. I just added this: -x Edit the main.cf configuration file, and remove the parameters given on the postconf(1) command line. The file is copied to a temporary file then renamed into place. Specify a list of parameter names, not name=value pairs. There is no postconf(1) command to perform the reverse operation. This feature is available with Postfix 2.10 and later. It uses the same code as -#, except it produces no output. And as with -#, there will be no command to perform the reverse operation. Feature patch will be on source code mirrors at postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-postconf-x-patch postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-postconf-x-patch.sig Wietse
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
--On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:25 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: This feature is available with Postfix 2.10 and later. It uses the same code as -#, except it produces no output. And as with -#, there will be no command to perform the reverse operation. Feature patch will be on source code mirrors at postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-postconf-x-patch postfix-release/experimental/feature-patches/20120307-postconf-x-patch.sig Thank you! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Re: How to delete a key via postconf
--On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:03 PM -0600 Larry Stone wrote: An aside in this: why is this so important for you? What's wrong with using a text editor to clean up main.cf? Until this thread came along, I didn't even know you could use postconf to edit main.cf; I've always used a text editor. And I consider that a plus since it lets me add comments and group things in a logical fashion. Hi Larry, We have automated processes that enable/disable features for our users, including policyd. Previously, we could just set policy_time_limit via postconf, and ignore it, since no error was thrown. Now that an error is thrown, I had to change the logic to only set it if the feature is enabled. However, if a client were to enable/disable/enable (for whatever reason, clients do do things like this...), the undesired behavior would occur. Since all of this is handled automatically by scripts that use postconf as the interface to configuring postfix, manually editing by hand doesn't work too well. ;) Certainly "sed" could be used, but having the ability to do this via postconf is preferred. And Wietse was kind enough to just add a feature to do just that. :) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Re: submission users still rejected by zen
On 3/7/2012 2:08 PM, Alex wrote: > Okay, great. I don't think I understood your previous post regarding > the IP list and the policy daemon. I'll have to research that further. > All the connections from everbridge.net were from the same IP. Yeah, smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=1 is the quick, targeted, silver bullet for slowing down bulk mailers. Most legit senders don't open multiple connections unless they have a lot of mail queued to your recipients, which would be gorillas and freemailers (Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc). But even then the volume is probably low enough that a single connection is sufficient. > I think I made the mistake of possibly combining two issues in the > same email. I had previously adjusted the default_process_limit to 300 > because connections to the server were timing out, not because amavisd > was dying or regarding the bulk senders issue. > I believe then you asked to report back the minimum value that was > possible for this setting, which is why I set it to 100. I then had > the amavisd issue, and combined with removing the reject_rbl from > smtpd_recipient_restrictions and only having it in postscreen, I > thought setting the default_process_limit back to the default of 200 > was reasonable. This was also all on the same host. Well, actually two > hosts; the primary and secondary MX for my domain. Hopefully that's > more clear now. All of your reported problems are related, all due to client connection load. Changing the parameter value mentioned above will likely fix all of these problems. BTW the process limit default is 100, not 200. > The secondary is definitely more idle than the first, even though they > are equally weighted. This can and likely will change over time, as I mentioned. Make your settings the same on all MX hosts. > Yes, understood. There are two MXs for the domain that has the bulk > mailing overload problem and the one I'm adjusting the > default_process_limit. There is one MX for the domain that has the > always_bcc issue and the submission port auth issue. Let's concentrate on the connection load issue. Both servers in question are MX servers, correct? Set smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=1 on both. Leave default_process_limit at the default of 100. That will fix both your queue clogging and timeout problems. > That's awesome. I will read about that further, but very happy to > learn this option exists. That is the option I was trying to describe > all along. It's pretty simple and straightforward, not much to read. Just set it, reload postfix, and take a peek at your mail log or summary tool. -- Stan
Installing postfix with mysql
Hello, I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. I am trying to follow the instructions at http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. The libmysql was extracted to /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit So from the postfix-2.9.1 directory, I ran: make -f Makefile.init makefiles \ 'CCARGS=-DHAS_MYSQL -I/usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit/include' \ 'AUXLIBS=-L/usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit/lib -lmysqlclient -lz -lm' Then ran the make command When I try to run make install, I get this error: bin/postconf: error while loading shared libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I found an article online (http://webhostingneeds.com/Error_while_loading_shared_libraries:_libmysqlclient.so.16) that suggests the /usr/lib/mysql path needs to be added to ld.so.conf, so I did that. I also created a symlink called libmysql.so.16 in that folder which points to libmysqlclient.so.16 (I did not actually have a file called libmysql.so.16). I am getting the impression libmysql is different from libmysqlclient. But I don't see where I can get this "libmysql" package. I tried "yum install libmysql" but it said there was no package available. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you Scott Brown
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
Am 08.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: > Hello, > I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. > I am trying to follow the instructions at > http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html > I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. why? "yum install mysql-devel" > The libmysql was extracted to > /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit AFAIK this is not mysql-devel > When I try to run make install, I get this error: > bin/postconf: error while loading shared > libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or > directory use as much system-packages as you can in as much default locations as possible! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
I want to use MySQL to manage the virtual table within Postfix. So it's not that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as separate applications. I want the MySQL-enhanced version of Postfix. - Original Message - From: Reindl Harald To: postfix-users@postfix.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Installing postfix with mysql Am 08.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: > Hello, > I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. > I am trying to follow the instructions at > http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html > I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. why? "yum install mysql-devel" > The libmysql was extracted to > /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit AFAIK this is not mysql-devel > When I try to run make install, I get this error: > bin/postconf: error while loading shared > libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or > directory use as much system-packages as you can in as much default locations as possible!
Fwd: Installing postfix with mysql
also fixed the offlist-reply jesus christ do not answer on top if you got one below your post and there is no need to send a "reply-all" because people answering on the mailing-list wilöl get also your reply on the list Original-Nachricht Betreff: Re: Installing postfix with mysql Datum: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:04:50 +0100 Von: Reindl Harald Organisation: the lounge interactive design An: Scott Brown TOP-POSTING FIXED > - Original Message - > From: Reindl Harald > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: Installing postfix with mysql > > > > Am 08.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: >> Hello, >> I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. >> I am trying to follow the instructions at >> http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html >> I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. > > why? > > "yum install mysql-devel" > >> The libmysql was extracted to >> /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit > > AFAIK this is not mysql-devel > >> When I try to run make install, I get this error: >> bin/postconf: error while loading shared >> libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or >> directory > > use as much system-packages as you can in as much default locations as > possible! Am 08.03.2012 00:59, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: > I want to use MySQL to manage the virtual table within Postfix. > So it's not that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as > separate applications. I want the MySQL-enhanced version of Postfix. i can not really imagine what you mean! if you want to compile any application on a Redhat based OS against mysql you simply install "mysql-devel" with it's dependencies instead download any random crap and move it somewhere after that you compile your application with the options to enable mysql-support, that is at the first step all you need so you have a clean setup and postfix is working with mysql-support where your database lives is another story, that is defined in your configuration > So it's not that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as > separate applications. how do you imagine this? somewhere has to be installed a normal mysqld to which postfix connects - ther is no "hey i am postfix and i am am MTA and database server at the same time" this are two complete different applications and will be all the time -- Mit besten Grüßen, Reindl Harald the lounge interactive design GmbH A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17 CTO / software-development / cms-solutions p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40 icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/ http://www.thelounge.net/signature.asc.what.htm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
CentOS Plus repo already has the postfix-SQL rpm. Go into /etc/yum.repo/CentOS.repo file and exclude postfix under Base and Updates. Then run yum --enablerepo=centosplus install postfix - this will install the version you need without having to compile. Regards On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Scott Brown wrote: > I want to use MySQL to manage the virtual table within Postfix. So it's not > that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as separate > applications. I want the MySQL-enhanced version of Postfix. > > > - Original Message - > From: Reindl Harald > To: postfix-users@postfix.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: Installing postfix with mysql > > > > Am 08.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: >> Hello, >> I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. >> I am trying to follow the instructions at >> http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html >> I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. > > why? > > "yum install mysql-devel" > >> The libmysql was extracted to >> /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit > > AFAIK this is not mysql-devel > >> When I try to run make install, I get this error: >> bin/postconf: error while loading shared >> libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or >> directory > > use as much system-packages as you can in as much default locations as > possible!
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
I don't know what you use but on my iPad / iPhone if I hit reply it only sends to you not the list. I do reply all. Please stop the whine and be constructive. Kthx Regards On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > also fixed the offlist-reply > > jesus christ do not answer on top if you got > one below your post and there is no need to > send a "reply-all" because people answering > on the mailing-list wilöl get also your reply > on the list > > Original-Nachricht > Betreff: Re: Installing postfix with mysql > Datum: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:04:50 +0100 > Von: Reindl Harald > Organisation: the lounge interactive design > An: Scott Brown > > TOP-POSTING FIXED > >> - Original Message - >> From: Reindl Harald >> To: postfix-users@postfix.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 6:55 PM >> Subject: Re: Installing postfix with mysql >> >> >> >> Am 08.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: >>> Hello, >>> I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. >>> I am trying to follow the instructions at >>> http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html >>> I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. >> >> why? >> >> "yum install mysql-devel" >> >>> The libmysql was extracted to >>> /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit >> >> AFAIK this is not mysql-devel >> >>> When I try to run make install, I get this error: >>> bin/postconf: error while loading shared >>> libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or >>> directory >> >> use as much system-packages as you can in as much default locations as >> possible! > > Am 08.03.2012 00:59, schrieb Scott Brown scottwb...@yahoo.com: >> I want to use MySQL to manage the virtual table within Postfix. >> So it's not that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as >> separate applications. I want the MySQL-enhanced version of Postfix. > > i can not really imagine what you mean! > > if you want to compile any application on a Redhat based OS > against mysql you simply install "mysql-devel" with it's dependencies > instead download any random crap and move it somewhere > > after that you compile your application with the options to > enable mysql-support, that is at the first step all you need > > so you have a clean setup and postfix is working with mysql-support > where your database lives is another story, that is defined > in your configuration > >> So it's not that I want to just have MySQL and Postfix on the server as >> separate applications. > > how do you imagine this? > > somewhere has to be installed a normal mysqld to which postfix > connects - ther is no "hey i am postfix and i am am MTA and > database server at the same time" > > this are two complete different applications and will be all the time > > > > -- > > Mit besten Grüßen, Reindl Harald > the lounge interactive design GmbH > A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17 > CTO / software-development / cms-solutions > p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40 > icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/ > > http://www.thelounge.net/signature.asc.what.htm >
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
Am 08.03.2012 01:21, schrieb Mailinglist mailingl...@theflux.net: > I don't know what you use but on my iPad / iPhone if I hit reply it only > sends to you not the list. I do reply all. Please stop the whine and be > constructive. Kthx if your client is broken and does not support "reply to list" you culd be so nice and remove the personal RCPT after press "reply all" i do not whine but I MAFDE A MISTAKE use reply off-list because first i got the duplicate and after reply the message to the list - nobody needs each message multiple times the same for top-posting AFTER get a reply below the OP a thread is completly unreadable this way if questions and anserws are miexed in randomly order signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Installing postfix with mysql
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:46:25 -0800 (PST), Scott Brown wrote: > I am trying to install Postfix with mysql on CentOS 6.0. > I am trying to follow the instructions > at http://www.postfix.org/MYSQL_README.html > I downloaded the mysql libraries and source code. > The libmysql was extracted > to /usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit > > So from the postfix-2.9.1 directory, I ran: > make -f Makefile.init makefiles \ > 'CCARGS=-DHAS_MYSQL > -I/usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit/include' \ > 'AUXLIBS=-L/usr/local/mysql-connector-c-6.0.2-linux-glibc2.3-x86-32bit/lib > -lmysqlclient -lz -lm' Actually, I don't know the compatibility of libmysql with libmysqlclient, did you tried 'ldconfig' after installed that library ? or, you should use MySQL-devel-rpm in order to follow the README instructions safely. > Then ran the make command > > When I try to run make install, I get this error: > bin/postconf: error while loading shared > libraries: libmysql.so.16: cannot open shared object file: No such file or > directory you should check # ldd bin/postconf (in Linux) or something like that after this kind of errors. pgpi0BEIvbdFO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Anyone else getting lots of spam from Plesk web sites?
Just starting today we've received dozens of spam from websites, all coming from anonym...@www.example.com where www.example.com is a website showing Plesk. I've blocked dozens of IPs. Has anyone else seen this?
Re: submission users still rejected by zen
Hi, >> Yes, understood. There are two MXs for the domain that has the bulk >> mailing overload problem and the one I'm adjusting the >> default_process_limit. There is one MX for the domain that has the >> always_bcc issue and the submission port auth issue. > > Let's concentrate on the connection load issue. Both servers in > question are MX servers, correct? Set > smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=1 on both. Leave > default_process_limit at the default of 100. That will fix both your > queue clogging and timeout problems. I've set this on both the primary and secondary MX servers now. Can you explain how this parameter actually works? Currently, services such as constantcontact make many thousands of connections to the server at a time. I'm assuming each connection represents one message. By setting smtpd_client_connection_count_limit to 1, isn't it only regulating the number of messages per connection, not the actual number of connections? In the docs it says it shouldn't be used to limit legitimate traffic. Is that not the case? Maybe it's premature to mention it now, but I believe it was rob0 that had previously mentioned using the anvil_rate* and smtpd_*rate parameters. Are the others not necessary? Thanks, Alex
Re: Anyone else getting lots of spam from Plesk web sites?
On 08-03-12 03:01, francis picabia wrote: Just starting today we've received dozens of spam from websites, all coming from anonym...@www.example.com where www.example.com is a website showing Plesk. I've blocked dozens of IPs. Has anyone else seen this? Iirc recently there was a hole in Plesk which Plesk fixed but I guess some hosters or admins are slow to update. Once the security issue became public the dark side has been searching the Interwebs for vulnerable servers. Guess they found some to send you their crap. Regards, Patrick
Re: submission users still rejected by zen
On 3/7/2012 8:21 PM, Alex wrote: > I've set this on both the primary and secondary MX servers now. So now you only need to pay attention to non bulk senders to make sure they're not delaying due to the 1 connection limit. It most likely won't be a problem, but keep an eye on it just in case. > Can you explain how this parameter actually works? Currently, services > such as constantcontact make many thousands of connections to the > server at a time. I'm assuming each connection represents one message. It's very simple. The parameter name is actually self explanatory. This limits the number of concurrent SMTP connections from any remote host. For example, if Constant Contact is currently hitting you from 20 different hosts, each one is allowed to make 50 connections, for 1000 concurrent total connections. By setting this parameter to 1 that connection total drops from 1000 to 20. Thus CC can now only tie up at max 20 of your 100 smtpd processes, and the rate at which they can pump mail is decreased by a factor of ~50. This in turn decreases the load on your queue by a factor of ~50. This is why this one setting can simultaneously fix your timeout issue and your overloaded queue. The timeouts disappear because you now have more smtpd processes free to accept connections whereas before they were all full at times, causing clients to wait. The queue is no longer overloaded because the bulk senders can only pump about 1/50th as much mail into your queue. > By setting smtpd_client_connection_count_limit to 1, isn't it only > regulating the number of messages per connection, not the actual > number of connections? No. This setting limits the number of connections per client. > In the docs it says it shouldn't be used to limit legitimate traffic. > Is that not the case? This depends on how do you define "legitimate" traffic? This setting, and 2 others similar to it, allow you to shape problematic traffic patterns. These are global settings. Thus if you take the "legitimate traffic" statement literally, then all your traffic must be illegitimate in order to use these settings, in which case the proper course of action is to simply shut the server down, since no traffic is legit. So don't take that statement *literally*. > Maybe it's premature to mention it now, but I believe it was rob0 that > had previously mentioned using the anvil_rate* and smtpd_*rate > parameters. Are the others not necessary? These parameters slow down *all* clients, no matter how many concurrent connections they make. You don't want to slow all clients. Your goal is to eliminate the problems caused by bulk mailers. The setting I recommended does that, but it shouldn't slow down non bulk senders. BTW, what tools are you using to monitor your Postfix performance? -- Stan
centos 5 postfix rpms?
Hi, What is the best / reliable site to find newer postfix rpm packages for centos 5 / rhel 5? by default it ships postfix 2.3.x and it's a bit antique version. -- Eero
Re: centos 5 postfix rpms?
On 8/3/2012 6:40 πμ, Eero Volotinen wrote: What is the best / reliable site to find newer postfix rpm packages for centos 5 / rhel 5? by default it ships postfix 2.3.x and it's a bit antique version. Hi Eero, These are considered fine: http://postfix.wl0.org/en/available-packages/, yet they diverge from standard (include VDA patch and possibly more non-standard options). But you can download the src.rpm and build RPMs yourself disabling any undesired options (see directions: http://postfix.wl0.org/en/building-rpms/). Other SRPMs I know: http://www.kutukupret.com/downloads-page/ http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/postfix/RPMS/ils-5/SRPMS/ Until now, I have not been able to find ready-made CentOS Postfix RPMs with standard-only options. You could also compile from source as described here: http://stevejenkins.com/blog/2011/01/building-postfix-2-8-on-rhel5-centos-5-from-source/ I currently use the latter methodology since a year or so on a number of systems and it works fine. However, if someone can point to ready-made RPMs with standard-only options, I would be interested as well, as building from source does not scale well. Note that this has been discussed again in this list. See for example: http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/html/postfix-users@postfix.org/2011-10/msg00094.html Best regards, Nick
