On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Marcel Grandemange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have a server that has one real ip and a virtual second ip.
>
> Both are connected to the same isp but have different addresses.
>
>
>
> The plan was one is used for all normall traffic but the second only for
>
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Marcel Grandemange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have a server that has one real ip and a virtual second ip.
>
> Both are connected to the same isp but have different addresses.
>
>
>
> The plan was one is used for all normall traffic but the second only for
>
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 09:32 +0200, Marcel Grandemange wrote:
[stuff deleted]
>
> Ive been following different setups , and everytime spotfix insists on using
> main interface to send mail.
>
> em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
> options=19b
> ether 00:30:48:90:c8:28
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
Ive been following different setups , and everytime spotfix insists on using
main interface to send mail.
please stop talking about "interface". if you have a problem related to
interfaces, ask on your OS forum.
em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=19
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
> Ive been following different setups , and everytime spotfix insists on
using
> main interface to send mail.
>please stop talking about "interface". if you have a problem related to
>interfaces, ask on your OS forum.
>
> em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
>
options=19
Hi everyone,
I've just moved to a new server with what should be an identical Postfix
configuration. The main.cf and master.cf files for each appear to be as
similar as they can get for two different systems. The problem I've found
since starting up the new server is that all mail to @mac.com a
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
Please do
# postconf -e smtp_bind_address=196.212.65.187
# postfix stop
# postfix start
then send a new test mail and see which IP is being used. you can send
me a message so that I see which IP is being used.
done
it came out from 196.212.65.186.
if you still
Rodti MacLeary wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've just moved to a new server with what should be an identical Postfix
configuration. The main.cf and master.cf files for each appear to be as
similar as they can get for two different systems. The problem I've found
since starting up the new server is that
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:18:33 +0200, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe the IP of the new server is different from the old one. some sites
> find it suspicious to get a lot of mail from a new IP. try contacting
> the mac.com postmaster.
The IP address has indeed changed. I'll contact the p
Hi,
I am trying to send mail to my mail ID from host 172.16.4.99
When I do telnet from 172.16.4.99 to 172.16.2.0 (mailserver) it suceeds.
But When I use an application it does not send mail.
Below is the relevant part of "mail.info"
What could be wrong?
Thanks
--Siju
==
>> Please do
>
> # postconf -e smtp_bind_address=196.212.65.187
> # postfix stop
> # postfix start
>
>> then send a new test mail and see which IP is being used. you can send
>> me a message so that I see which IP is being used.
>
> done
>
>it came out from 196.212.65.186.
Yup :/
>> if you
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
looks like it may be the case. which NAT do you use? is it an external
box or is it pf or ipf on the same box (with pf or ipf, use pfctl or
ipnat to see nat rules and states).
Ipfw used:
Relavent rule:
00025 25672291 13377857559 divert 8668 ip from any to any via em0
Hi,
As of yesterday, the primary MX for madduck.net supports IPv6 and
I've added the appropriate record. Unfortunately, this now
causes b.mx.madduck.net, the backup MX, to reject mails, since I use
permit_mx_backup_networks set to 213.203.238.82/32.
b.mx.madduck.net is also IPv6-connected, a
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to send mail to my mail ID from host 172.16.4.99
When I do telnet from 172.16.4.99 to 172.16.2.0 (mailserver) it suceeds.
But When I use an application it does not send mail.
Below is the relevant part of "mail.info"
What could be wrong?
Thanks
--Siju
=
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Siju George wrote:
>> --Siju
>>
>> ===
>> [snip]
>> Sep 3 16:08:01 devsrv postfix/smtp[7167]: 29A7A1E4F2A:
>> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.goog
permit_mx_backup_networks uses the same parser as mynetworks,
and therefore it expects the same main.cf syntax as mynetworks.
In smtpd_check.c:
mynetworks =
namadr_list_init(match_parent_style(VAR_MYNETWORKS),
var_mynetworks);
...
perm_mx_networks =
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
>> looks like it may be the case. which NAT do you use? is it an external
>> box or is it pf or ipf on the same box (with pf or ipf, use pfctl or
>> ipnat to see nat rules and states).
>
> Ipfw used:
> Relavent rule:
> 00025 25672291 13377857559 divert 8668 ip from any
Hi,
i successfully compiled and packaged postfix 2.5.5 on suse 10.1 with
gcc 4.1.2
Now i try same with suse 8.2 and gcc 3.3
Testcompile with simple: make tidy results in
make tidy
make -f Makefile.in MAKELEVEL= Makefiles
(echo "# Do not edit -- this file documents how Postfix was built for
Andre H?bner:
> Hi,
>
> i successfully compiled and packaged postfix 2.5.5 on suse 10.1 with
> gcc 4.1.2
>
> Now i try same with suse 8.2 and gcc 3.3
>
> Testcompile with simple: make tidy results in
>
> make tidy
> make -f Makefile.in MAKELEVEL= Makefiles
> (echo "# Do not edit -- this file
I see from the documentation that the current default of
hash_queue_names is only to hash the defer and deferred directories, in
contrast to versions prior to 2.2 where pretty much everything was hash
queued. The documentation has this to say about the reason for the change:
Claims about imp
* Mark Goodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Claims about improvements in file system technology suggest that
> hashing of the incoming and active queues is no longer needed. Fewer
> hashed directories speed up the time needed to restart Postfix.
>
> My question is: if the time taken to restart Post
Mark Goodge:
> I see from the documentation that the current default of
> hash_queue_names is only to hash the defer and deferred directories, in
> contrast to versions prior to 2.2 where pretty much everything was hash
> queued. The documentation has this to say about the reason for the change:
Note that uint32_t is used in /usr/include/sys/epoll.h. This means
that you have a broken include file hierachy.
/usr/include/sys/epoll.h is part of c-library and unchanged by me
i tried "make tidy" on this machine with version 2.4.9 and it was
successfull
lines 56-68 of /usr/include/sys/epo
Wietse Venema wrote:
Mark Goodge:
My question is: if the time taken to restart Postfix is not an issue,
but throughput performance while Postfix is running is a primary
concern, is it still worth hashing the incoming and active queues?
The purpose of "queue hashing" is to limit the number
Andre H?bner:
> > Note that uint32_t is used in /usr/include/sys/epoll.h. This means
> > that you have a broken include file hierachy.
>
> /usr/include/sys/epoll.h is part of c-library and unchanged by me
Sorry, /usr/include/sys/epoll.h is a SYSTEM INCLUDE FILE and such
files must not have "undef
Sorry, "make tidy" is always successful. This proves nothing.
not always, this is the reason for writing to this list ;)
errormessages sent in 1. mail are result of make tidy
hmm, on this special maschine no sys-software is changed by me. i even
cannot update any parts of system cause it is d
Andre H?bner:
>
> > Sorry, "make tidy" is always successful. This proves nothing.
>
> not always, this is the reason for writing to this list ;)
> errormessages sent in 1. mail are result of make tidy
That is incorrect.
This was your problem report:
1 make tidy
2 make -f Makefile.in MAKELE
shawn D.Wang wrote:
Thanks Noel.
But before I send to hotmail and yahoo, I have tested my dkim and spf
by sending mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
and here are the imformation in the head of '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Authentication-Results: ns1.qubic.net; sender-id=pass
[EMAIL PROT
Hi Noel,
Actually I wanted to use it in production after a successful test,
but as I see now I should change my mind and use a "real" new instance.
But I'm afraid that would cause new problems, look, what I exactly need:
We communicate with some partner companies in an
extranet.
If an email
a)
Jannis Kafkoulas wrote:
Hi Noel,
Actually I wanted to use it in production after a successful test,
but as I see now I should change my mind and use a "real" new instance.
But I'm afraid that would cause new problems, look, what I exactly need:
We communicate with some partner companies in an
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Jannis Kafkoulas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Jannis Kafkoulas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: _checks in a postfix instance?
To: "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:44 AM
--- On Tue, 9/2/08, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: mouss <[
Thanks!
I'll try.
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: _checks in a postfix instance?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "postfix users list"
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:33 AM
Jannis Kafkoulas wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> Actually I
Hello everyone. We've been running a Postfix/MySQL virtual domain setup
for a few years now. A bunch of our users have mobile email now and
would like to receive email on their fancy new devices. While this can
be done with a simple alias its not quite what we need. Some of our
users only want
I configured reject_invalid_helo_hostname and was surprised to find
that underscores were permitted. Judging by the source (I'm not
conversant in C), it looks like the author had this comment
regarding allowing underscores: "grr.." I feel similarly. Is that
you, Mr. Venema? My sympathy. I take
Stephen Atkins wrote:
> Hello everyone. We've been running a Postfix/MySQL virtual domain setup
> for a few years now. A bunch of our users have mobile email now and
> would like to receive email on their fancy new devices. While this can
> be done with a simple alias its not quite what we need.
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> Since you're using MySQL already, why not just extend the table with a
> few fields and change the Query?
>
> Queries can include IFs as documented in MySQL and simply check for
> column values versus CURTIME().
>
> Exact implementation is a bit beyond this lis
Raymond Keller:
> I configured reject_invalid_helo_hostname and was surprised to find
> that underscores were permitted. Judging by the source (I'm not
> conversant in C), it looks like the author had this comment
> regarding allowing underscores: "grr.." I feel similarly. Is that
> you, Mr. Ven
On my Postfix server, I am unable to enable smtpd_*_restrictions in my
main.cf. With the following commented out, I can send and receive
email all day long with no problems but when I uncomment the following
lines, I get errors trying to send email from my email server...
#smtpd_recipient_restrict
Hi, everyone,
So, one the one hand, tcp_table has been in postfix for a long time,
the interface seems to be stable, and, at least for my purposes, it
would be ideal---I could significantly streamline some processes.
On the other hand, in DATABASE_README, it still intones:
This protocol is not
I have built a 2.5.1 postfix system on a x86 box with solaris 10 kernel
version Generic-137112-01. This machine will forward to our exchange
machines etc. I use the aliases database for this purpose. I have used
the dbm database and it has worked well in the past, I have a test
system built (I tho
Raymond Keller wrote:
I configured reject_invalid_helo_hostname and was surprised to find
that underscores were permitted. Judging by the source (I'm not
conversant in C), it looks like the author had this comment
regarding allowing underscores: "grr.." I feel similarly. Is that
you, Mr. Venem
Carlos Williams wrote:
On my Postfix server, I am unable to enable smtpd_*_restrictions in my
main.cf. With the following commented out, I can send and receive
email all day long with no problems but when I uncomment the following
lines, I get errors trying to send email from my email server...
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
Hi, everyone,
So, one the one hand, tcp_table has been in postfix for a long time,
the interface seems to be stable, and, at least for my purposes, it
would be ideal---I could significantly streamline some processes.
On the other hand, in DATABASE_README, it still int
* Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20080903 11:35]:
> Raymond Keller:
> > I configured reject_invalid_helo_hostname and was surprised to find
> > that underscores were permitted. Judging by the source (I'm not
> > conversant in C), it looks like the author had
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> show 'postconf -n' _after_ uncommenting the lines. we can't help you
> troubleshoot problems in setups that work!
Enabled in main.cf. Below is my postconf -n:
email:~# postconf -n
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = ha
Warner, Steve wrote:
> I have built a 2.5.1 postfix system on a x86 box with solaris 10 kernel
> version Generic-137112-01. This machine will forward to our exchange
> machines etc. I use the aliases database for this purpose. I have used
> the dbm database and it has worked well in the past, I ha
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:35:27 -0500
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The tcp table feature works, but the user interface is not not
> yet sufficiently robust and may change. So for now it only
> exists in the snapshot versions.
>
> Postfix snapshots are production-quality software that te
Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> show 'postconf -n' _after_ uncommenting the lines. we can't help you
>> troubleshoot problems in setups that work!
>>
>
> Enabled in main.cf. Below is my postconf -n:
>
> email:~# postconf -n
>
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:35:27 -0500
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The tcp table feature works, but the user interface is not not
yet sufficiently robust and may change. So for now it only
exists in the snapshot versions.
Postfix snapshots are production-qual
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is caused by not having permit_mynetworks as the first restriction.
> First restriction wins and this is being rejected by
> reject_unauth_destination because you told it to ignore people on your
> network.
Raymond Keller wrote:
* Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20080903 11:35]:
Raymond Keller:
I configured reject_invalid_helo_hostname and was surprised to find
that underscores were permitted. Judging by the source (I'm not
conversant in C), it looks like the author had this comment
rega
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:54:02 -0500
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code is present but disabled in the stable versions.
>
> Supported map types are listed by "postconf -m"
OK, fair enough, I hadn't noticed that though it was getting compiled it
wasn't getting linked in.
So, this fea
Thanks Brian the help I just forgot about the telbill base. Further
testing will tell.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Evans -
Postfix List
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:46 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postifx
I've built Postfix 2.5.4 with Cyrus SASL 2.1.2 on a Solaris 10 05/08
Ultra 10. I've got SASL support in postfix since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] libpcap-0.9.8]
51 # postconf -A
cyrus
However, when I try to send mail it gets bounced by my ISP's server as
no authentication is occuring. I've configured mai
Dear Folks,
Local delivery failed on my box, which also runs a couple of mailman
mailing lists, after I modified the configuration :-)
$ mailq|grep '^[^ \t]'| wc -l
798
Here are some warning messages from /var/log/maillog:
Sep 4 07:21:02 www3 postfix/qmgr[8080]: warning: connect to transport l
* Nick Urbanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Dear Folks,
>
> Local delivery failed on my box, which also runs a couple of mailman
> mailing lists, after I modified the configuration :-)
master.cf, remove the "a" before "local"
Next time, don't use vi
> alocal unix - n n -
Nick Urbanik wrote:
Dear Folks,
Local delivery failed on my box, which also runs a couple of mailman
mailing lists, after I modified the configuration :-)
$ mailq|grep '^[^ \t]'| wc -l
798
Here are some warning messages from /var/log/maillog:
Sep 4 07:21:02 www3 postfix/qmgr[8080]: warning: c
Nick Urbanik wrote:
error unix - - n - - error
alocal unix - n n - - local
virtual unix - n n - - virtual
Did you accidentally type an 'a' while editing master.cf?
Ido Dubrawsky wrote:
I've built Postfix 2.5.4 with Cyrus SASL 2.1.2 on a Solaris 10 05/08
Ultra 10. I've got SASL support in postfix since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] libpcap-0.9.8]
51 # postconf -A
cyrus
However, when I try to send mail it gets bounced by my ISP's server as
no authentication is occurin
Dear Folks,
On 03/09/08 23:45 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Nick Urbanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
master.cf, remove the "a" before "local"
Thank you so much! I'm an idiot!
Next time, don't use vi
Good advice.
--
Nick Urbanik http://nicku.org 808-71011 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG: 7FFA CDC7 5A77
I found the error. It was that relayhost was defined elsewhere in
main.cf as
relayhost = outgoing.verizon.net
therefore I needed the following in sasl_passwd:
outgoing.verizon.net :
(without the '[' and ']')
Finally, I had a missing link to my SASL2 plugin directory so Postfix
was not able
Ido Dubrawsky wrote:
I found the error. It was that relayhost was defined elsewhere in
main.cf as
This is one of the reasons why we ask for 'postconf -n' output. other
reasons include typos ("smtp_sas1_... =" and the like), ... etc.
relayhost = outgoing.verizon.net
therefore I needed the
* mouss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20080903 13:14]:
> Raymond Keller wrote:
> >Is the compatibility that is sought by allowing underscores done for
> >the sake of Windows MUAs?
>
> No. This has nothing to do with windows nor with MUAs. you generally
> don't care abou
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Raymond Keller wrote:
/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$/554 RFC 2821 does not allow bare
address literals.
FYI- This can be shortened a bit more:
/^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/ REJECT RFC 2821 does not allow bare address
literals.
Also, I don't see under:
http:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Raymond Keller wrote:
/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$/554 RFC 2821 does not allow bare
address literals.
FYI- This can be shortened a bit more:
/^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/ REJECT RFC 2821 does not allow bare address
litera
Raymond Keller wrote:
Ah. I don't have experience with varieties of server installations,
so my guess was very speculative. However, I would be surprised to
hear if there were _no_ implementations wherein MUAs submit to
Postfix via 25 (despite what MUAs ought to do). And I would be
surprised
Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Raymond Keller wrote:
/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$/554 RFC 2821 does not allow
bare address literals.
FYI- This can be shortened a bit more:
/^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/ REJECT RFC 2821 does not allow b
mouss wrote:
Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Raymond Keller wrote:
/^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$/554 RFC 2821 does not allow
bare address literals.
FYI- This can be shortened a bit more:
/^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$/ REJECT RFC 2821 do
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:33 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eddie b wrote:
>
>>
>>> It doesnt help with dovecot though, as DC's LDA processes what and where
>> and
>> only understands maildir:/some/path/domain/user (AFAIK) so your above
>> example would work with postfix's internal virtua
Eddie b wrote:
I do stand corrected, I played on our dev box once I returned to work and
have it working perfectly as I want it, but before i allow it to go live i
need to ensure a few things, you see I'm a 20 year sendmail veteran, and a
10 year qmail veteran, but only 10 day postfix newbie :P
On 9/4/08, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shawn D.Wang wrote:
> > Thanks Noel.
> > But before I send to hotmail and yahoo, I have tested my dkim and spf
> > by sending mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and
> > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
> > and here are the imformation in the head of
> '[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:05 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The only ones I'm unsure on are...
>>
>> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
>> reject_unknown_sender_domain,permit_mynetworks,permi
>> t_sasl_authenticated,reject_non_fqdn_sender,permit
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> reject_u
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Eddie b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
> OK, thats much neater, but if I choose to use sendmail access style file ,
> include that there? or then I need to create sender restrictions?
>
>
>>
Scrap that! I think I'm getting the hang of it, it'll be in recipients
73 matches
Mail list logo
