Any update on this?
Thank you,
Buzai
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Buzai Andras wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Reindl Harald:
>>> To your querstion about superuser:
>>> NERVER EVER build sources as superuser necause
>>> if there are bugs in the build-proce
On 12/01/11 02:11, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
On 2011-01-11 at 19:46:48 +, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
I will give authenticated clients direct access to the IMAP and SMTP
ports on my load-balancer (No proxies). I will however only accept
incoming mail from the internet via separate mx server wh
From: Jonathan Tripathy
> I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to use a
> central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage. Since
> they will both be configured with central storage, I can use my
> load-balancer to distribute load between both of th
On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to use a
central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage. Since
they will both be configured with central storage, I can use my
load-balancer to distrib
On 12/01/11 10:18, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to
use a
central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage.
Since
they will both be configured with central
On 12/01/11 10:18, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to
use a
central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage.
Since
they will both be configured with central
From: Jonathan Tripathy
> While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems if
> both
postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced)
> In fact I may be able to answer my own question by saying yes, it would
> cause
>a problem as you're not supposed to
* Buzai Andras :
> > Sorry if my question may seem a stupid one but what do you mean by:
> > unprivileged (but trusted) user?
A user without root-privileges
> > I created a user named "build" with home directory set to: /home/build
> > and I compile the sources with this user inside it's home di
On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
> While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems if
both
postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced)
In fact I may be able to answer my own question by saying yes, it would cause
a prob
Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
> While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems
if both
postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced)
In fact I may be able to answer my own que
On 12/01/11 12:47, John Adams wrote:
Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
> While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems
if both
postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced)
In
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
> Von: John Adams
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
> Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
> >
> > On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
> >> From: Jonathan Tripathy
> >>
> >> > While
On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
Von: John Adams
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripathy
Whi
Am 12.01.2011 14:36, schrieb Steve:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
Von: John Adams
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
From: Jonathan Tripat
On 12/01/11 13:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
Von: John Adams
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
On 12/01/11 10:45,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:42:14 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
> >> Von:
On 12/01/11 14:00, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:42:14 +
Von: Jonathan Tripathy
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +01
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:56:37 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 13:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> >
> > On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
> >> Original-Nachricht
>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:05:54 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 14:00, Steve wrote:
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:42:14 +
> >> Von:
Hello Jonathan,
I think what I am getting confused over is whether or not your GlusterFS
node are the same are your Postfix servers.
yes. They are.
I did a little reading
online, and from my understanding, you have 2 GlusterFS server and 2
GlusterFS clients.
Correct.
Does this mean
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:25:04 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> > Hello Jonathan,
> >
> >> I think what I am getting confused over is whether or not your
> GlusterFS
> >> node are the same ar
My Postfix server wont allow SMTP from my web server (running
RoundCube webmail) which happens to be on the same network / subnet as
my Postfix mail server. My mail server is running only Postfix &
Dovecot while my web server has Apache, RoundCube, & PostgreSQL
installed:
mail = 192.168.0.200/24
w
Oh and one final question, how does GlusterFS handle split-brain? Let's
say somehow the replication link became broken, but both Postfix servers
continued to operate...
This is documentation from 2.x series of GlusterFS but it still applies to 3.x:
http://www.gluster.com/community/documentati
On 1/12/2011 9:50 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote:
> My Postfix server wont allow SMTP from my web server (running
> RoundCube webmail) which happens to be on the same network / subnet as
> my Postfix mail server. My mail server is running only Postfix &
> Dovecot while my web server has Apache, RoundCube
Hi,
your point is well taken. The reason for my setup is this:
I wanted to have virtual addresses for all my domains, which are mapped
separately to virtual users (meaning Maildirs delivered via dovecot
(mainly to use sieve)). Those virtual users would generally be
independant from UNIX users o
My Postfix server wont allow SMTP from my web server (running
RoundCube webmail) which happens to be on the same network / subnet
as
my Postfix mail server. My mail server is running only Postfix &
Dovecot while my web server has Apache, RoundCube, & PostgreSQL
installed:
mail = 192.168.0.200/2
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Gary Chambers wrote:
> This is definitely not a Postfix problem. For the record, the OP needs to
> choose whether or not they wish to authenticate (via submission (587) or
> SMTPS (465)) or send mail with plain SMTP. To fix the problem as described
> by the OP:
Hi There,
With Postfix set up by default, it will send a bounce message to sender
if it cannot deliver the message. But I can create SPAM message with
some innocent sender address and send to Postfix. Then, the innocent
sender will get undelivered email from Postfix.
How would I disable bounce
On 1/12/2011 11:00 AM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> With Postfix set up by default, it will send a bounce message to sender
> if it cannot deliver the message. But I can create SPAM message with
> some innocent sender address and send to Postfix. Then, the innocent
> sender will get undelivere
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:00:56AM -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> Even if we can solve the above problem without disable bounce, we still
> need to do that anyway. We are exchanging only-encrypted messages
> between sender & recipients, so the concept of bounce does not apply
> here. If we were to gene
Zhou, Yan:
> Hi There,
>
> With Postfix set up by default, it will send a bounce message to sender
> if it cannot deliver the message. But I can create SPAM message with
> some innocent sender address and send to Postfix. Then, the innocent
> sender will get undelivered email from Postfix.
Solu
Is it possible to specify multiple relayhosts?
I.e. with such entry:
relayhost = [my.relay.host]
any delivery will fail if my.relay.host goes down.
Is it possible to somehow specify multiple relay hosts, so that if one
relayhost is down, postfix tries to deliver to the next one?
One "tri
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:59:30PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Is it possible to specify multiple relayhosts?
Best done via MX records.
> relayhost = [relay.example.com]
By removing the "[]" from the name, and adding suitably weighted
MX records for "relay.example.com".
relayhos
Why not a SLB, Its a nice solution .. :)
Smtp works very well with slb
sorry about my bad english .. :(
2011/1/12 Tomasz Chmielewski
> Is it possible to specify multiple relayhosts?
>
> I.e. with such entry:
>
> relayhost = [my.relay.host]
>
>
> any delivery will fail if my.relay.host goes do
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
works for me .. :)
2011/1/12 Giovani Dardani
> Why not a SLB, Its a nice solution .. :)
>
> Smtp works very well with slb
>
> sorry about my bad english .. :(
>
>
> 2011/1/12 Tomasz Chmielewski
>
> Is it possible to specify multiple relayhosts?
>>
>> I.e. w
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:38:28 -0200
> Von: Giovani Dardani
> An: Tomasz Chmielewski
> CC: postfix-us...@cloud9.net
> Betreff: Re: multiple relayhosts (fallback)?
> Why not a SLB, Its a nice solution .. :)
>
What is SLB?
> Smtp works very well with sl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_balancing_%28computing%29
:)
2011/1/12 Steve
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:38:28 -0200
> > Von: Giovani Dardani
> > An: Tomasz Chmielewski
> > CC: postfix-us...@cloud9.net
> > Betreff: Re: multiple relayhosts (fallbac
Today I found this in my log:
Jan 12 22:39:39 mail postfix/postscreen[17030]: COMMAND PIPELINING from
[216.46.18.51]:58366 after QUIT
So I wondered -- "after QUIT?" and had a look at the client:
mail:~# host 216.46.18.51
51.18.46.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 51.32/27.18.46.216.in-addr.arpa.
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> Today I found this in my log:
> Jan 12 22:39:39 mail postfix/postscreen[17030]: COMMAND PIPELINING from
> [216.46.18.51]:58366 after QUIT
>
> So I wondered -- "after QUIT?" and had a look at the client:
>
> mail:~# host 216.46.18.51
> 51.18.46.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> Today I found this in my log:
> Jan 12 22:39:39 mail postfix/postscreen[17030]: COMMAND PIPELINING from
> [216.46.18.51]:58366 after QUIT
>
> So I wondered -- "after QUIT?" and had a look at the client:
>
> mail:~# host 216.46.18.51
> 51.18.46.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for
* Wietse Venema :
> postscreen reports COMMAND PIPELINING when the READ operation
> returned more input after QUIT.
>
> You have no evidence that Postfix actually sent that. It could be
> a NAT firewall in front of other systems.
That could be, it was just one random pick.
I performed the same
Le 12/01/2011 00:09, Andy Spiegl a écrit :
>> More specifically, "u...@example.com" is a defined email address and
>> you want to accept all "prefix.u...@example.com" variants for valid
>> users and arbitrary prefixes?
> Exactly!
>
>> Well, it is not really an "extension", rather a prefix.
> Oops
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:27:45AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> the idea is
No, the idea is rather different.
> mysql> select substring_index("joe@example", ".", -1);
> +-+
> | substring_index("joe@example", ".", -1) |
> +-
Hi
I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting
of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA
and performance are both important concerns for the client, so I have
at least 2 of every server (webmail, pop3, imap, relay and smtp
(postfix)) for which i
On 13/01/11 05:36, Jaques Cochet wrote:
Hi
I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting
of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA
and performance are both important concerns for the client, so I have
at least 2 of every server (webmail, pop3,
+--
| On 2011-01-13 07:36:12, Jaques Cochet wrote:
|
| I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting
| of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA
| and performance are both
On 13/01/11 05:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
On 13/01/11 05:36, Jaques Cochet wrote:
Hi
I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting
of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA
and performance are both important concerns for the client, so I h
Thank you both, and sorry for not noticing Jonathan's recent post.
I'll read a bit and get back.
Omar
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
>
>
> On 13/01/11 05:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
>>
>> On 13/01/11 05:36, Jaques Cochet wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm working on a mail
Hi there,
I'm using a virtual vacation script (version 3.2), which runs as a content
filter for a while - but I have one makjor problem. It works fine as an
auotreply script for users who are on vacation, but stops all other users from
sending and receiving their mail.
After many hours trouble
49 matches
Mail list logo
