Michael Monnerie wrote:
Dear list, this message was generated by the receiver postfix (2.2.1),
where the sender postfix was 2.3.2 from openSUSE 10.2. The receiver's
disk was temporarily full, which it announced correctly, but the sender
ignored it and continued to try to send. Is this normal
Noel Jones wrote:
Gerardo Herzig wrote:
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 and Kaspersky Antispam/Antivirus on our MX.
Mailboxes are hosted on another server.
The MX is relaying 250 domains or so, and it doesn't have resources
issues.
Our problem is that mail stay a long time in the active queue before the
content filter, but when it's
Alan Boyd:
Hello,
I'm trying to find a way to reject email which is sent to an unknown
user (determined by an external program) at a virtual domain, such
that the email doesn't even enter the mail queue.
Currently, my set up is as follows:
I use a virtual mapping to send email in the
On 9/26/2008, Henrik K ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ok that's true. But it still doesn't make it right to have a non-working
envelope sender.
What is 'right' and what is reality are often very different things.
--
Best regards,
Charles
2008/9/25 Brian Evans - Postfix List [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
mouss wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_sender_mx_access. did
On Freitag, 26. September 2008 Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix sends you this transcript because of the Insufficient system
storage problem, not because the client was using pipelining.
Ah OK. But as it is a temporary message the sender gets, it retries very
quick and often. And each time a
On 9/26/2008, Michael Monnerie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
that your disk is almost
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 9/26/2008, Michael Monnerie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or
Marco TCHI HONG:
Our problem is that mail stay a long time in the active queue before the
content filter, but when it's sent to the server where mailboxes are
stored there's no problem:
Sep 26 10:11:57 mx postfix/smtp[1387]: 1906C718411:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
On 9/26/2008 7:56 AM, PauAmma wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
that your disk is almost full.
If 5000 messages
Hi,
Thanks for the response. Two questions:
1) Which variable in main.cf should this lookup table be referenced in?
2) I've read the man page, but it isn't clear in whether I can
reference a database or table which is produced as the output of a
program? For example, whether postfix can
Marc Silver wrote:
Hi guys,
I have two (probably) very simple questions for you Postfix gurus.
Firstly, I was wondering if there's a Postfix equivalent of the 'exim
-bt address' command in Exim? This command shows the specific route
that the MTA would use to deliver the message for the
Marc Silver:
Hi guys,
I have two (probably) very simple questions for you Postfix gurus.
Firstly, I was wondering if there's a Postfix equivalent of the 'exim -bt
address' command in Exim?
Postfix mail delivery daemons can report the result of one attempt
to deliver mail (without
One possible explanation is that the filter queries a
broken DNS (blocklist) server
When the problem occured, I already thought about the broken DNSBL query.
The content filter isn't doing any DNSBL check and the problem persists.
Another possibility is that the
Postfix SMTP server behind the
Wietse:
Another possibility is that the
Postfix SMTP server behind the content filter has problems when it
tries to resolve the 127.0.0.1 client IP address to a hostname.
Marco TCHI HONG:
How would be resolving a problem 127.0.0.1 when in my /etc/hosts.conf I
have : order hosts,bind and the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:19:50AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse:
Another possibility is that the
Postfix SMTP server behind the content filter has problems when it
tries to resolve the 127.0.0.1 client IP address to a hostname.
Marco TCHI HONG:
How would be resolving a problem
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 08:49:05AM -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
if bounce, then bcc or forward
... so we can analyze the bounces.
bounce_notice_recipient would be perfect, but it only includes the headers,
not the DATA.
There is no mechanism for delivering complete extra copies of bounce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is what I'm seeing in my logs:
Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: connect from
mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]
Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Without a current 'postconf -n', no one here can tell you.
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory =
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:01AM -0400, Peter L. Berghold wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_sender_access
hash:/etc/postfix/access,permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination,
reject_unauth_pipelining,reject_non_fqdn_sender,
These concurrency numbers are very high. Running A/V scanning
at concurrency substantially higher than ~20 (on Dual CPU boxes) is
generally counter-productive.
I have two Xeon 5160 Dual-Core 3,0 GHz on my box and 4Gb RAM.
About 500k mail go through this MX (50Gb traffic).
What is the destination
Peter L. Berghold wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Without a current 'postconf -n', no one here can tell you.
[...]
relay_domains = bayshoredogclub.org,
berghold.net,agilitystewards.org,localhost
No relay_recipient_maps could make you an (out|back)scatter source.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 06:30:03PM +0300, Marco TCHI HONG wrote:
These concurrency numbers are very high. Running A/V scanning
at concurrency substantially higher than ~20 (on Dual CPU boxes) is
generally counter-productive.
I have two Xeon 5160 Dual-Core 3,0 GHz on my box and 4Gb RAM.
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/9/25 Brian Evans - Postfix List [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
The Problem the OP appears to fall into is that mail coming from outside
the mynetworks is being trapped to do a local DNS MX/A record.
It is probably pointing mail to the example.com as 127.0.0.1 (not
uncommon).
I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
postfix to stop trying to look up its own domain with local mail and
just use the hosts file. Or if I could get it to stop appending
anything to the username
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:48PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
I am running in a chroot setup.
Why???
Sep 26 11:29:43 dilton postfix/qmgr[16091]: 0BDB83E04F8:
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=327, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Sep 26 11:29:43 dilton postfix/smtp[16234]: 0BDB83E04F8:
to=[EMAIL
Alan Boyd wrote:
Gah.
I was hoping there'd be some means to do a simple pipe to an external
application which provided the result. :(
I suppose the SMTPD_POLICY_README is the way to go, then. Though it's a
little more heavyweight than I anticipated.
Still, it would allow me to easily ignore
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:40:53PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
here is postconf -n output:
Here too domains are obfuscated, so I can't help you further.
content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
Your logs don't show any use of amavis, this sure looks like the wrong
John O'Reilly wrote:
First of all, thanks. I need the help.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Victor Duchovni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:48PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
I am running in a chroot setup.
Why???
apparently, that's the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 03:10:27PM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Is there more than one? I'm making changes to the one in
/etc/post/main.cf, and they show up when I do a 'postconf'.
If in a chroot, a process looks in /var/spool/postfix/etc for
configuration. (and
John O'Reilly:
hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4
With disable_dns_lookup=yes, Postfix uses the nsswitch mechanisms
to look up host address information. What does mdns4_minimal do?
Wietse
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry 10.1.2.3 requires
transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
--
Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry 10.1.2.3
requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in the inline above:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry 10.1.2.3
requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in the
Camron W. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry 10.1.2.3
requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in the inline above:
133.40.0.0/16 FILTER DUNNO
DUNNO is not a filter; that's
36 matches
Mail list logo
