thank you, that is exactly what i was looking for..
J.Vitek
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:10 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 6/29/2010 10:58 AM, Jiri Vitek wrote:
Hi everybody,
i need configure postfix to handle just one incoming address(i can do
that without problem), and not sending it to
01.07.2010 00:07, David Touzeau:
dear I know this is not a good idea but this is for an internal server
in order to auto-create mailboxes.
A script parse the catch-all mailbox and create the appropriate mailbox
THe behavior is when i send mail to use...@domain.tld the catch-all
take the
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes
equal to the maximum required during a burst situation. My question is:
could any of these
Thanks for this information markus
I would like to know if for this kind of virtual maps
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
@domain.tld noexist...@domain.tld
when i send an email to use...@domain.tld postfix send to
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just to give
postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept emails, but my need
is to prevent that an other person use an other mail server to send emails
using our domain. It mean i want to specify to postfix the servers
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal
to the maximum
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:15:10AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
More info. This is how the queues always look, it's a very typical batch:
http://i.imgur.com/7MPIx.png
This graph has no scale, and would not be very interesting in any case.
Have you made attempt to sign-up for Yahoo's feedback
01.07.2010 10:49, David Touzeau:
I would like to know if for this kind of virtual maps
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
use...@domain.tld use...@domain.tld
@domain.tld noexist...@domain.tld
when i send an email to use...@domain.tld postfix send to
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
Hello guys,
I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster
dues to the great input I got in this list :)
I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote:
The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow,
make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so
complex that they can only be resolved via a table scan.
Is this also true for one
Hello Everyone, i´m going to make it quick,
We are receiving a lot of errors from the Queue of postfix, and emails are
not going out, we are getting this error:
host mx2.hotmail.com[65.54.188.72] said: 451 Couldn't open temporary file
(in reply to DATA command)
We have also seen that we have
here it is the main.cf
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count = 3
address_verify_poll_delay = 3s
address_verify_positive_expire_time = 31d
01.07.2010 14:40, David Touzeau:
here it is the main.cf
Post the output of
postconf -n
next time
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count = 3
Datatronics Gmail skrev 2010-07-01 15:06:
Hello Everyone, i´m going to make it quick,
**
Problem #1
We are receiving a lot of errors from the Queue of postfix, and emails are
not going out, we are getting this error:
host
On 01/07/2010 15:17, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 14:40, David Touzeau:
here it is the main.cf
Post the output of
postconf -n
next time
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
01.07.2010 15:48, David Touzeau:
here it is the postconf -n
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count = 3
address_verify_poll_delay = 3s
On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 15:48, David Touzeau:
here it is the postconf -n
2bounce_notice_recipient = postmaster
address_verify_negative_cache = yes
address_verify_negative_expire_time = 3d
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 3h
address_verify_poll_count =
01.07.2010 16:49, David Touzeau:
On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
Again:
What are the contents of /etc/postfix/mydestination? Did you postmap it?
And:
BTW: what's the point in explicitly setting so many configuration
variables to their default values?
Jul 1 16:48:08
On 01/07/2010 17:22, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
01.07.2010 16:49, David Touzeau:
On 01/07/2010 16:34, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
Again:
What are the contents of /etc/postfix/mydestination? Did you postmap it?
And:
BTW: what's the point in explicitly setting so many configuration
01.07.2010 17:38, David Touzeau:
this is the content of
/etc/postfix/mydestination
---
company.tld OK
/etc/postfix/aliases
---
user1:us...@company.tld
user2:us...@company.tld
all-users:all-us...@company.tld
01.07.2010 18:13, David Touzeau:
THanks to explain to me the process but what is for you the best
settings to fix the situation ?
Hm, I have already said what I consider the best fix for the situation:
get rid of the catch-all and implement recipient validation.
--
Regards
mks
I think i have found the solution
the solution is to populate the /etc/postfix/virtual with user's emails
addresses maps before the catch-all
instead this
@company.tldall-us...@company.tld
fill this:
us...@company.tld us...@company.tld
us...@company.tld us...@company.tld
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which should be sent to
m...@roland-ramthun.de.
This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roland Ramthun said the following on 01/07/10 19:39:
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays
messages to the primary.
What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
If you set mailbox_size_limit
On 7/1/2010 1:39 PM, Roland Ramthun wrote:
Hi all,
I obviously have an configuration error on my backup MX, but can't sort it out
alone.
I use two mailservers, one primary MX and a secondary MX which relays messages
to the primary.
A cron job on eara now generated a mail to root, which
Srdan Dukic:
Hi,
I've got an email server which I use for testing various setups. I am now
trying to get this server to soft bounce all mail for a particular address
e.g. 'softbou...@example.com'. I am doing this to test whether the sending
server is handling and reporting the soft bounces
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.7.1.
220 mail.server.com ESMTP Postfix
EHLO hostname
250-mail.server.com
250-PIPELINING
David Hill:
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.7.1.
220 mail.server.com ESMTP Postfix
EHLO hostname
250-mail.server.com
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:03:23 -0400
Brian Evans - Postfix List grkni...@scent-team.com wrote:
global/mail_params.h
563:extern int var_mailbox_limit;
Both of these parameters are signed integers as of Postfix 2.6.5 (and
possibly later versions)
Once you exceed 2,147,483,647; you get
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:00:09 +0200
Luigi Rosa li...@luigirosa.com wrote:
What's the point in setting a mailbox limit on a backup MX server?
If you set mailbox_size_limit to zero, what happens?
The configuration was partly copied from an old machine, this setting doesn't
make sense in this
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
David Hill:
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the server gives back 450 4.7.1.
On 7/1/2010 4:14 AM, Rachid Abdelkhalak wrote:
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just
to give postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept
emails, but my need is to prevent that an other person use an
other mail server to send emails using our domain. It
On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, David Hill wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
David Hill:
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code of 5.7.1 if the optional text is
not specified. However, the
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:46:19PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, David Hill wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:35:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
David Hill:
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.7.1. The header_checks manpage says REJECT will
insert a default enhanced status code
* David Hill dh...@mindcry.org:
soft_bounce = yes
turn it off
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
AHHH, thanks for that. hidden in my config
Sorry for the noise.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:06:29PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* David Hill dh...@mindcry.org:
soft_bounce = yes
turn it off
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité -
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
Thank you Noel, I'll try that and let you know.
Best regards.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/1/2010 4:14 AM, Rachid Abdelkhalak wrote:
Hello,
If i understand, the smtpd_recipient_restrictions allow just
to give postfix the list of addresses for wich he can accept
emails, but
On 07/01/2010 05:40 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
On 7/1/2010 4:40 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Slightly off topic, but a user has observed that any email sent in plain text
is bounced, any mail sent as HTML gets sent.
Has anyone encountered such an issue? My environment hasn't really changed in
months and I'm confused.
Thanks,
James
I've
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=sa...@2co.commailto:sa...@2co.com,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25, delay=0.98,
* James R. Marcus jmar...@edhance.com:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=sa...@2co.commailto:sa...@2co.com,
On 7/1/2010 4:55 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a
sanity check. Here they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=sa...@2co.com mailto:sa...@2co.com,
Yes. Well actually an ASA 5520
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* James R. Marcus jmar...@edhance.commailto:jmar...@edhance.com:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check. Here
they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23
On 07/01/2010 05:55 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity check.
Here they are:
---
Postfix Logs
---
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=sa...@2co.com mailto:sa...@2co.com,
On 07/01/2010 06:50 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Yes. Well actually an ASA 5520
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* James R. Marcus jmar...@edhance.com mailto:jmar...@edhance.com:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a sanity
check. Here they are:
No it is not just one host it is many.
I have tried to confirm the users claim, and although he is a reliable source,
I wasn't able to replicate the issue.
The recipient did not get the email anyway, as far as I know. There was no
response, and in this case it was a customer service request.
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# no fixup protocol smtp 25
I believe these are the defaults. Do I need to do esmtp too?
thanks,
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at
On 07/01/2010 07:02 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# no fixup protocol smtp 25
I believe its: no inspect smtp
Most ASAs
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
On 07/01/2010 07:02 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
For the ASA:
af-cam-primary# conf t
af-cam-primary(config)# class-map inspection_default
af-cam-primary(config-cmap)# class inspection_default
On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
So you tried it and it didn't work or you ran the command and it wasn't
correct?
-Matt
On 7/1/2010 5:54 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
No it is not just one host it is many.
Ah. Apparently your firewall is breaking the mail
transaction. You either need to tell the firewall to not
interfere with SMTP, or fix it so it at least doesn't break
SMTP.
If you're not sure how to do
I tried your command and it didn't take, I then ran what I posted and it seems
to have worked.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Matt Hayes domin...@slackadelic.com wrote:
On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
no inspect smtp didn't work for me.
So you tried it and it
On 07/01/2010 10:19 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
I tried your command and it didn't take, I then ran what I posted and it seems
to have worked.
James
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Matt Hayesdomin...@slackadelic.com wrote:
On 07/01/2010 07:29 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
no inspect smtp
Is it possible to execute a system command upon the following smtpd client
restriction rejections?
smtpd_client_restrictions =
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname,
reject_unknown_client_hostname
Would like to automate insertion of client IP address into
55 matches
Mail list logo
