On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Depending on what the exact setup is, a friend has a script that should
help: http://slacker.com/~nugget/projects/postfixrelaymaps/
Thanks, but the script would involve a fair amount of work, since our mail
system isn't based on the pasword file :) Bu
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:21:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:14:42PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>On Sun, 28 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>
> >>>AFAICS, this is caused by the machine attempting to relay th
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:07PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Postfix allows you to specify a list of valid email addresses. It should
> >be a simple matter of specifying what all the valid mailing list email
> >addresses are.
> >
>
> umm ... we allow non-subscribers t
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:14:42PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
AFAICS, this is caused by the machine attempting to relay thousands and
thousands of spam emails (some quick checked showed a rate of about 1
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Postfix allows you to specify a list of valid email addresses. It should
be a simple matter of specifying what all the valid mailing list email
addresses are.
umm ... we allow non-subscribers to post, the posts just
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Postfix allows you to specify a list of valid email addresses. It should
> >be a simple matter of specifying what all the valid mailing list email
> >addresses are.
>
> umm ... we allow non-subscribers to post, the posts just have to be
> approved. H
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Postfix allows you to specify a list of valid email addresses. It should
be a simple matter of specifying what all the valid mailing list email
addresses are.
umm ... we allow non-subscribers to post, the posts just have to be
approved. How would we still do that?
chee
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:14:42PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> >AFAICS, this is caused by the machine attempting to relay thousands and
> >thousands of spam emails (some quick checked showed a rate of about 1
> >spam / 5 seconds enytering the
> > > Run something like:
> > > mailq | grep "Recipient address rejected"
> >
> > I thought that the above was supposed to be a perm error,
> not temp?
> > Does anyone know what I need to set in postfix on svr1 to
> change it to
> > a perm?
>
> Yes, htat's what I sent before :-)
>
> c) Chan
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 03:00:44PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> >Run something like:
> >mailq | grep "Recipient address rejected"
>
> I thought that the above was supposed to be a perm error, not temp? Does
> anyone know what I need to set in postfix on svr1 to change it to a perm?
Do y
> >>> The quick fix is, as I wrote in one of my earlier mails, to
> >> configure
> >>> svr1 not to tell svr4 to *retry delivery*, but to just junk
> >> the mail
> >>> right away. It'll still cause joe-job style problems, but
> it won't
> >>> load up the queue for days.
> >>
> >> But, from my look
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The quick fix is, as I wrote in one of my earlier mails, to
configure
svr1 not to tell svr4 to *retry delivery*, but to just junk
the mail
right away. It'll still cause joe-job style problems, but it won't
load up the queue for days.
But, from my
> > The quick fix is, as I wrote in one of my earlier mails, to
> configure
> > svr1 not to tell svr4 to *retry delivery*, but to just junk
> the mail
> > right away. It'll still cause joe-job style problems, but it won't
> > load up the queue for days.
>
> But, from my look at the queue on sv
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The quick fix is, as I wrote in one of my earlier mails, to configure
svr1 not to tell svr4 to *retry delivery*, but to just junk the mail
right away. It'll still cause joe-job style problems, but it won't load
up the queue for days.
But, from my l
> > AFAICS, this is caused by the machine attempting to relay thousands
> > and thousands of spam emails (some quick checked showed a rate of
> > about 1 spam / 5 seconds enytering the queue - and I know I deleted
> > almost 20,000 from the queue)
>
> And how exactly would you like me to fix *t
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:
AFAICS, this is caused by the machine attempting to relay thousands and
thousands of spam emails (some quick checked showed a rate of about 1
spam / 5 seconds enytering the queue - and I know I deleted almost
20,000 from the queue)
And how exactly
For bittorrent, I propose we take it out. We've suggested it before, I
don't recall receiving any real requests to keep it, and IMHO it's way
much more pain than it's worth.
We received a couple of requests for the torrent on the IRC channel when
the update was released. Just FYI.
Therefor
Hi,
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 21:25 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> For bittorrent, I propose we take it out. We've suggested it before, I
> don't recall receiving any real requests to keep it, and IMHO it's way
> much more pain than it's worth. Therefor, unless someone objects, I'll
> pull the bitto
> >> anoncvs (svr4, 66.98.251.159) is still slow responding to "cvs
> >> update"; it's been spotty for about a week now. Tcpdump shows
> >> connections being established but then long delays for ACKs,
> >> sometimes long enough for cvs to time out. Any updates on
> what's going on?
> >
> > Ma
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
anoncvs (svr4, 66.98.251.159) is still slow responding to "cvs update";
it's been spotty for about a week now. Tcpdump shows connections being
established but then long delays for ACKs, sometimes long enough for cvs
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> anoncvs (svr4, 66.98.251.159) is still slow responding to "cvs update";
> it's been spotty for about a week now. Tcpdump shows connections being
> established but then long delays for ACKs, sometimes long enough for cvs
> to time out. Any updates on what
21 matches
Mail list logo
