* Edward Morbius dredmorb...@gmail.com:
Several of our peer mail systems (outbound) seem to take a while responding
to initial SMTP connections.
That happens if:
* your dns is slow (reverse lookups of the client IP)
* all your SMTPD processes are in use
Is there any particularly dread
Are you sure? Because nothing is running on that port. The bash script is
just a stand-alone script not running on any port.
My logs also say:
warning: connect to transport private/localhost: Connection refused
netstat -tap says:
tcp0 0 localhost:10027 *:*
LISTEN
Hi,
Im using postfix 2.8.5 with postscreen.
Im constantly getting this error message
Oct 18 08:02:10 inbound-us1 postfix/postscreen[12189]: NOQUEUE: reject:
RCPT from [x.x.x.x]:64730: 550 5.5.1 Protocol error;
from=newslet...@greetings.info, to=preethin...@mail.in, proto=SMTP,
* Jeetu jeetendr...@directi.com:
Hi,
Im using postfix 2.8.5 with postscreen.
Im constantly getting this error message
Oct 18 08:02:10 inbound-us1 postfix/postscreen[12189]: NOQUEUE:
reject: RCPT from [x.x.x.x]:64730: 550 5.5.1 Protocol error;
from=newslet...@greetings.info,
problem solved by using header_checks.
header_checks:
if /^TO:/
/^To: .*testvw01@xxx01\.local/ FILTER autoresponder:
/^To: .*testhk03@xxx02\.local/ FILTER autoresponder:
endif
master.cf:
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
-o content_filter=dfilt:
-o
Hello,
on the web there are several recipes to integrate Spamassassin with
Postfix, but no one seems to me to be the definitive recipe. I think
that this configuration is quite common (for low volume smtp servers)
and would deserve a small space in Postfix official documentation, but
maybe it is
On 10/18/2011 3:01 AM, Roland de Lepper wrote:
Are you sure? Because nothing is running on that port. The bash
script is just a stand-alone script not running on any port.
I didn't say anything about a port. Edit your dfilt script to send
its output to the autoresponder script.
My logs
Jeetu:
Hi,
Im using postfix 2.8.5 with postscreen.
Im constantly getting this error message
Oct 18 08:02:10 inbound-us1 postfix/postscreen[12189]: NOQUEUE: reject:
RCPT from [x.x.x.x]:64730: 550 5.5.1 Protocol error;
from=newslet...@greetings.info, to=preethin...@mail.in, proto=SMTP,
On 17 October 2011 19:43, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 10/17/2011 10:50 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Does your approach for sending to abuse work for Roadrunner? I have
1000 pings a day from a host on RR cable and when I tried to email
abb...@rr.com, the connection timed out
Hi,
I try to change the source code of postfix to allow postfix to send more
than one message per open connection.
I want to create a new value like message_per_open_connect=
I use the rate delay 0 that for the concurrency limit at 1.
I also try to change this setting in source code and
Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
Hello,
on the web there are several recipes to integrate Spamassassin with
Postfix, but no one seems to me to be the definitive recipe. I think
that this configuration is quite common (for low volume smtp servers)
and would deserve a small space in Postfix official
Zitat von Mickael B m...@brainw1.net:
Hi,
I try to change the source code of postfix to allow postfix to send more
than one message per open connection.
I want to create a new value like message_per_open_connect=
I use the rate delay 0 that for the concurrency limit at 1.
I also try to
Hi,
For information in source code the line where concurrency is force at 1 when
rate delay is 0 here
if (transport-rate_delay 0)
transport-dest_concurrency_limit = 1;
if (transport-dest_concurrency_limit != 0
transport-dest_concurrency_limit
I already read this but the cache connection are in time and I prefer to use
the cache connection per message
If I do that :
smtp_connection_cache_on_demand = yes
smtp_connection_cache_destinations = hotmail.com
And I want to limit to hotmail destination to send per open connection over
10
Mickael B:
I try to change the source code of postfix to allow postfix to
send more than one message per open connection (while rate-limiting
at one per 6 seconds).
It is anti-social to keep a remote SMTP connection idle for several
seconds. If you need to send lots of email, you must not use
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:17:18PM -0700, Edward Morbius wrote:
Several of our peer mail systems (outbound) seem to take a while responding
to initial SMTP connections.
Is there any particularly dread pitfall to watch out for in bumping these
values up? 20s for connection, 40s for HELO is
The ISP ask the social sending method is send message per open connection
I just want to keep the connection open to send my message and respect the
recommendation of ISP.
I'm not sending email from my home user ISP account, I'm sending my
newletter from my server with Postfix MTA and webmin
Mick
Mickael B:
I try to change the source code of postfix to allow postfix to
send more than one message per open connection (while rate-limiting
at one per 6 seconds).
Wietse:
It is anti-social to keep a remote SMTP connection idle for several
seconds. If you need to send lots of email, you
On 13 October 2011 20:11, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
The only place you should really care about encryption is if your
own clients submit SASL authenticated mail -- the far most common
auth mechanisms are PLAIN and LOGIN which really should be protected
inside a TLS connection.
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented DKIM
signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming and outgoing - and I was happy
with that.
If I want Amavis to scan and rate the mail after dkim proxy has signed it, is
that as simple as adding the content filter
On 2011-10-18 1:04 PM, Simon Brereton simon.brere...@buongiorno.com wrote:
Is smtpd_enforce_tls=yes a suitable replacement/substitute for
smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes?
No, they are two different things.
What version of postfix? For current/latest version of postfix I use both:
If I create specific transport like slow and high
Slow_connection_cache_time_limit = 2s
High_connection_cache_time_limit = 5s
I have to add the value in scache(8) and smtp(8)?
==
Used in Parameter name and default value
On 10/18/2011 01:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented DKIM
signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming and outgoing - and I was
happy with that.
I don't know if that's would suites you but Amavis is capable of
On 18 October 2011 13:27, Simon Deziel simon.dez...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/2011 01:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented
DKIM signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming and outgoing - and I
was happy with that.
I
On 10/18/2011 12:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented DKIM
signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming and outgoing - and I was
happy with that.
If I want Amavis to scan and rate the mail after dkim proxy has
On 10/18/2011 12:04 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 13 October 2011 20:11, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
The only place you should really care about encryption is if your
own clients submit SASL authenticated mail -- the far most common
auth mechanisms are PLAIN and LOGIN which really
On 18 October 2011 13:52, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 10/18/2011 12:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented
DKIM signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming and outgoing - and I
was happy with that.
If
On 18 October 2011 14:17, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 10/18/2011 12:04 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 13 October 2011 20:11, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
The only place you should really care about encryption is if your
own clients submit SASL authenticated mail --
On 10/18/2011 1:20 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
I already use amavis to do the dkim checking on incoming mails. I'm
using dkimproxy to sign outgoing mails (and I confess I only found out
about opendkim after I'd set it up, so I'm not keen to change it at
the moment - though of course, your vote
Mickael B:
If I create specific transport like slow and high
Slow_connection_cache_time_limit = 2s
High_connection_cache_time_limit = 5s
There is no documentation that supports this, therefore these
are not Postfix features.
I have to add the value in scache(8) and smtp(8)?
If you have more
On 10/18/2011 1:24 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
smtpd_enforce_tls is obsolete, instead use
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
This setting will reject all mail from unencrypted connections. The
encrypt setting must not be used on a public-facing port 25, but
is widely used and recommended on
On 10/18/2011 01:41 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 18 October 2011 13:27, Simon Deziel simon.dez...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/2011 01:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before I implemented
DKIM signing, Amavis used to scan ALL mail - incoming
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:04:30PM -0400, Simon Brereton wrote:
Is smtpd_enforce_tls=yes a suitable replacement/substitute for
smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes?
With smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt (or its legacy form) the
smtpd_tls_auth_only feature is arguably reduntant, but it is
harmless, and
On 18 October 2011 15:01, Simon Deziel simon.dez...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/2011 01:41 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 18 October 2011 13:27, Simon Deziel simon.dez...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/2011 01:12 PM, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
I expect that this is not recommended practice, but before
Good to know.
I think we've addressed the problem, but it's nice to know we've got a lot
of headroom to move up. Total traffic is ~40k messages/day, and our big
sticking point's been Yahoo though we've been talking with them and may be
doing better (hopefully lots better).
The slow connections
Ralf: thanks for your response.
Our DNS queries seem fine. I tested via telnet connections to the remote
sites and confirmed that they were responding slowly to HELO. Even after
doing this (e.g.: cached DNS results) postfix was timing out with the old
values. At 20/40 for connect/helo, we were
Hello Kris, thank you for your comments.
On 18/10/11 17:03, Kris Deugau wrote:
Since you're happy to deliver the spam somewhere, rather than trying to
reject it during the SMTP conversation, you're probably best off calling
spamc early in your local-delivery rules rather than trying to
37 matches
Mail list logo
