On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Yang Zhang wrote:
> After a relay serving as a backup MX enqueues a message because the
> primary is down, and then the relay is reloaded with a different
> configuration such that it no longer is relaying mail, will Postfix
> still continue to attempt for
Thanks, Jeroen, see my comment below.
> > postmap -qv test.medplus.com ldap:acceptdomains
> > postmap: fatal: open database test.medplus.com.db: No such file or
> > directory
> >
>
This is the output of postmap -vq test.medplus.com ldap:acceptdomains
It does query into LDAP but returns noth
After a relay serving as a backup MX enqueues a message because the
primary is down, and then the relay is reloaded with a different
configuration such that it no longer is relaying mail, will Postfix
still continue to attempt forwarding the already-queued messages?
--
Yang Zhang
http://yz.mit.edu/
Here is a similar incident with a milter not understanding multiline
responses, as well as shooting out the query without waiting for a
greeting. Below is my side of the correspondence with its author
and with the postmaster of the site where it was first observed.
From: Mark Martinec
To: Eugene
Le 30/09/2010 12:48, Christian Rößner a écrit :
Hi,
I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority than a
FILTER setting in an access table:
if you use a proxy filter, _all_ mail goes to the proxy filter.
Sep 30 12:33:04 mx0 postfix/smtpd[5250]: warning: access t
On 09/30/2010 09:54 PM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
Hi there,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 to integrate with RedHat Open LDAP server. I
verified that my LDAP set up is correct, because I used the same
configuration on another Postfix server, it worked.
The following is how I ask LDAP to validate domain name.
Hi there,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 to integrate with RedHat Open LDAP server. I
verified that my LDAP set up is correct, because I used the same
configuration on another Postfix server, it worked.
The following is how I ask LDAP to validate domain name.
main.cf:
mydestination = $myhostname, l
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:27:30PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
>
> > 192.109.31.12 is running:
> > 220 mail.EMBL-Hamburg.DE ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2; Thu, 30 Sep
> > 2010 16:06:22 +0200; (No UCE/UBE) logging access from:
> > mail.charite.de(OK)-mail.charit
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> 192.109.31.12 is running:
> 220 mail.EMBL-Hamburg.DE ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2; Thu, 30 Sep
> 2010 16:06:22 +0200; (No UCE/UBE) logging access from:
> mail.charite.de(OK)-mail.charite.de [141.42.202.200]
I found another one:
220 klx11.klinikum-amberg.de ESMTP
* Len Conrad :
> I've used pregreet on some very high volume MX for months, and had one FP.
I had these two (within one year), both with sendmails with (presumably!)
the same (?) milter.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Camp
Claus Assmann:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> > sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
>
> Is it?
>
> 4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
> ...
>One important reply is the connection greeting. N
-- Original Message --
From: Claus Assmann
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:07:23 -0700
>On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
>> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
>> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:07:23AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> > sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
>
> Is it?
>
> 4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
> ...
>O
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
Is it?
4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
...
One important reply is the connection greeting. Normally, a receiver
will send a
* Victor Duchovni :
> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
No tcpdump, but I have this:
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]: CONNECT from 192.109.31.12
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:48:19PM +0200, Christian R??ner wrote:
> I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority
> than a FILTER setting in an access table:
No, it does not. Rather, these are completely separate mechanisms, and
there is no reason to expect post-queue FI
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 04:18:47PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> I cannot say anything about the milter in use. A prior bug report of
> mine against "Smart Sendmail Filters"
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2815073&group_id=131540&atid=721356
>
> "The sender address verifi
On 09/30/2010 06:35 PM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
Hello
When I configured client to send mails via postfix server, everything
works fine but I do not want the clients to enter the postfix server
address when sending mails.
Then your postfix server isn't going to scan the messages.
They
Hello
When I configured client to send mails via postfix server, everything works
fine but I do not want the clients to enter the postfix server address when
sending mails. I still want them to point to their respective smtp server like
smtp.example.com and be redirected on the firewall through
Today I found a interesting problem regarding postscreen and a popular
(?) address verification milter in sendmail
>From my logs:
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
[192.109.31.12]: 550 5.5.1 Protocol error; from=<>, to=,
proto=SMTP, helo=
Sep 30 15:23:53
On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
> Hello,
> I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed through it
> and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my firewall but
> when I try sending mails through
> telnet for example smtp.gmail.com
On 9/30/2010 8:16 AM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
> Hello,
> I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed
> through it and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my
> firewall but when I try sending mails through
> telnet for example smtp.gmail.com 25
> I sti
Hello,
I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed through it
and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my firewall but when
I try sending mails through
telnet for example smtp.gmail.com 25
I still get through without seeing any transcation on the postfix se
Hi,
I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority than a
FILTER setting in an access table:
Sep 30 12:33:04 mx0 postfix/smtpd[5250]: warning: access table
cidr:/etc/postfix/maps/client_access.cidr: with smtpd_proxy_filter specified,
action FILTER is unavailable
What
24 matches
Mail list logo
