Re: Relaying problems

On 12-Nov-2009, at 21:09, Alex wrote: > But helo is a component of the envelope, no? No. -- <[TN]FBMachine> i got kicked out of Barnes and Noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section

Postfix version.

Hello Noel, As I checked with "http://www.postfix.org/announcements.html"; I found the following current stable version of postfix mail server. But I do not find any RPM for the same. # August 28, 2009: Stable release Postfix 2.6.5. Currently I am using postfix version as resulted wi

Re: Relaying problems

Hi, > If you don't want to whitelist the IP address completely but instead just > want to allow it to bypass your HELO checks, then check_helo_access will > work. However, you should first understand that the type of lookup performed > depends on the name of the restriction, NOT where the restrict

Re: Relaying problems

On 11/12/2009 9:21 PM, Alex wrote: It looks as if you're trying to whitelist the client by IP, so you need check_client_access to check an IP. Yes, and I've tried that too. I have done quite a bit of reading, and afraid I'm getting conflicting info now. I've read posts from Ralf in the past, as

Re: Relaying problems

Hi, > Stop top posting.  Google for the term if you don't understand. Sorry, that was only to follow up with my own post, so people had a reference. > It looks as if you're trying to whitelist the client by IP, so you need > check_client_access to check an IP. Yes, and I've tried that too. I ha

Re: Relaying problems

Noel Jones wrote: On 11/12/2009 1:48 PM, Alex wrote: Hi folks, I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for several IP addresses. I've ad

Re: Betr.: Re: Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

On 12-Nov-2009, at 13:35, Wietse Venema wrote: > This an incredibly unsafe tool. Ooo, those are my favorite kinds! -- The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but

Re: differences between _check options

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:22:08PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > > Nested headers = headers of a nested message/rfc822 part > > Like for example header in bounces Yes, unless the bounce includes the headers only, and not the full message in which case, the MIME part in question is just te

Re: special transport rules for mail that comes from sendmail/postdrop

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:04:59PM -0500, Mark Washenberger wrote: > The low-brow workaround did the trick. I'm sure the other would have worked > as well, but I'm looking forward to not setting up more instances :-) The complexity of multiple instances (with Postfix 2.6 and later) is largely ill

Re: special transport rules for mail that comes from sendmail/postdrop

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > On 11/12/2009 1:59 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >> >> The problem I'm trying to solve is that I really need all forwarded mail >> and vacation messages that originate on this server through sendmail to >> go to the relay server, even if the f

Re: Betr.: Re: Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

Noel Jones: > On 11/12/2009 12:28 PM, Arjan Melein wrote: > > Yea I just found that out when I just tried to sed the queue file :-) > > Any way to limit it to only take out the line on domain X Y and Z ? > > On a sidenote, its actually the RCPT TO: line and not the normal TO: > > line ... not sure

Re: Betr.: Re: Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

On 11/12/2009 12:28 PM, Arjan Melein wrote: Yea I just found that out when I just tried to sed the queue file :-) Any way to limit it to only take out the line on domain X Y and Z ? On a sidenote, its actually the RCPT TO: line and not the normal TO: line ... not sure if that's going to be a prob

Re: differences between _check options

* Victor Duchovni : > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:09:22PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > > > mime_header_checks = check the MIME headers (which specify the MIME > > structure of the mail) > > Primary headers = headers of the top-level message > Nested headers = headers of a nested messa

Re: differences between _check options

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:09:22PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > mime_header_checks = check the MIME headers (which specify the MIME structure > of the mail) Primary headers = headers of the top-level message Nested headers = headers of a nested message/rfc822 part MIME headers =

Re: Relaying problems

On 11/12/2009 1:48 PM, Alex wrote: Hi folks, I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for several IP addresses. I've added check_helo_acce

Re: special transport rules for mail that comes from sendmail/postdrop

On 11/12/2009 1:59 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: Hi all, Is it possible to set up special transport rules for the cleanup or pickup daemons? Does that question even make sense? What I have is something like this: transport_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_local.cf ,

Re: Relaying problems

Alex wrote: Hi folks, I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for several IP addresses. I've added check_helo_access as the first line of

Re: DB files across machines

* Ansgar Wiechers : > > My setup currently copies the plain text versions and creates a flag > > file. A cron job then looks for the flag file and postmaps the files if > > needed. > > Use incron instead of cron. Yes, it's a bit tricky to get right, but once it works... -- Ralf Hildebrandt

Re: differences between _check options

* Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz : > Hi all, > > I wonder if anyone has a link of could explain in detail differences on may > chackin between all *_check options. Mainly header_check, header_mime_check > & > body_check. I'm getting confussing header_Checks = check the headers body_checks = check

special transport rules for mail that comes from sendmail/postdrop

Hi all, Is it possible to set up special transport rules for the cleanup or pickup daemons? Does that question even make sense? What I have is something like this: transport_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_local.cf, hash:/etc/postfix/ relay.cf mysql_local.cf picks out traffic destined for

Re: Relaying problems

Hi, To follow up with my own post, I should mention that I did postmap the file, which I should have mentioned. I also thought it might be better to add it to smtpd_client_restrictions? smtpd_client_restrictions = check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_checks Perhaps that's the way to

Re: Relaying problems

Hi folks, I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for several IP addresses. I've added check_helo_access as the first line of my smtpd_reci

Re: DB files across machines

On 2009-11-12 Gaby Vanhegan wrote: > Is there a portable way to share postmapped file across machines? > > I have one postfix server running OpenBSD and another running CentOS, I > want the CentOS server to provide secondary services for for the BSD box. > The OpenBSD box uses virtual delivery:

Re: status during email life ...

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:32:50PM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: >> Note, this is logged by qmgr(8) not the smtp(8) delivery agent, perhaps >> you are looking in the wrong log entries. If the message is (still) in >> the deferred queue, it has not "expired" yet. > > Thank you so much, I was analysi

Re: status during email life ...

Victor Duchovni a écrit : On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: Victor Duchovni a ?crit : On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30:51AM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: But then, what status get and email retried without success until the end ? 2

Betr.: Re: Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

Yea I just found that out when I just tried to sed the queue file :-) Any way to limit it to only take out the line on domain X Y and Z ? On a sidenote, its actually the RCPT TO: line and not the normal TO: line ... not sure if that's going to be a problem .. RCPT TO: ORCPT=rfc822;groupwise-sou...

Re: Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

The emergency workaround is to remove the offending header. If you try to rewrite it, you're likely to break it in new and interesting ways. -- Noel Jones On 11/12/2009 7:51 AM, Arjan Melein wrote: Is there no way to somehow rewrite it instead of removing it fully ? I know its better to fix

Re: status during email life ...

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: > Victor Duchovni a ?crit : >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30:51AM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: >> >> >>> But then, what status get and email retried without success until the end >>> ? >> >> 2009-11-12T10:59:32-0500 amnesia

Re: status during email life ...

Hi, Victor Duchovni a écrit : On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30:51AM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: But then, what status get and email retried without success until the end ? 2009-11-12T10:59:32-0500 amnesiac postfix/qmgr[1706]: A323688C523: from=, size=385848, nrcpt=50 (queue activ

Re: status during email life ...

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30:51AM +0100, St?phane MERLE wrote: > But then, what status get and email retried without success until the end ? 2009-11-12T10:59:32-0500 amnesiac postfix/qmgr[1706]: A323688C523: from=, size=385848, nrcpt=50 (queue active) 2009-11-12T10:59:33-0500 amnesiac

Re: ??: ????: ????: who know how does initial_destination_concurrency and default_destination_concurrency_limit work?

Dhiraj Chatpar: > Hi Sir, > > If i am selecting this option > smtp_destination_rate_delay = 1s > > Will this reduce delivery to all domains or just one specific domain. Will > the actual throughput to the final delivery be reduced to one email per > second from my binded IP?.. Please confirm as t

Re: Server-side mail filtering (postfix+cyrus-imap)

Please Copy the list in your replies :) On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:01:09 +0100, nunatarsuaq wrote: > This is a good tutorial but when a newly created filter file should be > written? > > When I invoke > > # sieveshell -u cyrus -a cyrus localhost > First, you should log in with your personal accou

differences between _check options

Hi all, I wonder if anyone has a link of could explain in detail differences on may chackin between all *_check options. Mainly header_check, header_mime_check & body_check. I'm getting confussing TIA LD

Re: 答复: ????: ????: who know how does initial_de stination_concurrency and default_destination_concurrency_li mit work?

Hi Sir, If i am selecting this option smtp_destination_rate_delay = 1s Will this reduce delivery to all domains or just one specific domain. Will the actual throughput to the final delivery be reduced to one email per second from my binded IP?.. Please confirm as that is what i am looking for. A

Re: DB files across machines

* Gaby Vanhegan : > I guess I was just misleading myself with respect to CDB and > performance: > > http://www.postfix.org/CDB_README.html I've been using it for years, no problems... -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Re: DB files across machines

* Gaby Vanhegan : > I was under the impression that there was a performance penalty using > CDB with Postfix? A negative penalty, yes -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Be

Re: DB files across machines

On 12 Nov 2009, at 14:14, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Gaby Vanhegan : Is there a portable way to share postmapped file across machines? Yes: 1) share the text files, then use a Makefile to convert them on the target systems I already do this, I wanted to take this step out. 2) Use comp

Re: DB files across machines

On 12 Nov 2009, at 14:17, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: I get the same error if I try to read the contents of the .db file using postmap directly. Is there going to be some architectural difference between the two systems? Is there a more cross-platform file format I could use for the datab

Re: DB files across machines

Zitat von Gaby Vanhegan : Is there a portable way to share postmapped file across machines? I have one postfix server running OpenBSD and another running CentOS, I want the CentOS server to provide secondary services for for the BSD box. The OpenBSD box uses virtual delivery: /etc/postfi

Re: DB files across machines

* Gaby Vanhegan : > Is there a portable way to share postmapped file across machines? Yes: 1) share the text files, then use a Makefile to convert them on the target systems 2) Use compatible BerkeleyDB versions 3) Don't use BerkeleyDB, use CDB -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT |

DB files across machines

Is there a portable way to share postmapped file across machines? I have one postfix server running OpenBSD and another running CentOS, I want the CentOS server to provide secondary services for for the BSD box. The OpenBSD box uses virtual delivery: /etc/postfix/main.cf:(BSD box) ... # Wh

Betr.: Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

Is there no way to somehow rewrite it instead of removing it fully ? I know its better to fix GroupWise, I've been *trying* to get it fixed really hard for a few weeks now, but trying to get Novell to move a little is like trying to fight a major house fire with just a supersoaker .. I need a t

Re: Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

On 11/12/2009 3:50 AM, Arjan Melein wrote: Hello, I am currently having an issue where our enterprise mail system is bugged(groupwise8sp1) and for some unknown reason, even for Novell, it is adding ";1:1" to the end of the TO: line and this is causing e-mails to bounce with a certain ISP who h

Re: Relaying problems

On 11/11/2009 11:36 PM, Alex wrote: Hi, But commas do make it prettier to look at. My reality has been shaken, and everything I previously thought I knew drawn into question. Yeah, crazy. I always had the smtpd_recipient_restrictions separated by a comma, all on one line, until recently whe

Re: Postfix and Dovecot SASL

Quoting Rene Bakkum : Hello all, I am struggeling to get my Dovecot SASL to work within postfix. I have used the configuration example listed on the main-site of dovecot and it basically isn't giving me any success at all. I am probably missing something easy, but after spending a few days test

Postfix and Dovecot SASL

Hello all, I am struggeling to get my Dovecot SASL to work within postfix. I have used the configuration example listed on the main-site of dovecot and it basically isn't giving me any success at all. I am probably missing something easy, but after spending a few days testing and walking through e

status during email life ...

Hi, I just want to be sure, I understood correctly : When an email is sent, it gain the status "SENT" in the logs, if the distant server oppose a definitive error, it gain the "BOUNCED" status. If the distant server oppose a non definitive error or is enable to answer, the mail get the "DEFERR

Trim part of the header with header rewriting ?

Hello, I am currently having an issue where our enterprise mail system is bugged(groupwise8sp1) and for some unknown reason, even for Novell, it is adding ";1:1" to the end of the TO: line and this is causing e-mails to bounce with a certain ISP who has very strict header checking. I'm using po