* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
- Some distributions already ship with append_dot_mydomain = no.
This is an opportunity to eliminate the inconsistency.
This will probably break mail setups that used to rely on unqualified
names in a way that's hard to diagnose, especially if there is
a
Hello,
Thank You Noel, the big a=63191 can be caused by retries ?
Best regards.
Francis
On 09/23/2014 04:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/23/2014 6:56 AM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Hello Peter,
Thank you for your reply, I thought this is multiple messages in a
single connection, but greater than
Am 24.09.2014 um 02:42 schrieb Peter:
On 09/24/2014 08:12 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
well, i would like to deliver that messages unchanged but send a
copy to a special, full qualified
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this RFC
within Postfix for 2.12 (or later).
Postfix has no priorities. If you want to schedule different classes
of mail independently,
Hello,
In the past I have discussed some failover options for incoming mail.
Now, I would appreciate your advice on outgoing mail (and POP3/IMAP
mailbox access) in building a mail service with redundancy.
We already have two production mail servers, vmail1 and vmail2, running
Am 24.09.2014 um 15:06 schrieb Nikolaos Milas:
Hello,
In the past I have discussed some failover options for incoming mail.
Now, I would appreciate your advice on outgoing mail (and POP3/IMAP
mailbox access) in building a mail service with redundancy.
We already have two production mail
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:37:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this RFC
within Postfix for 2.12 (or later).
Postfix has no
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:21:07AM +0200, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Thank You Noel, the big a=63191 can be caused by retries ?
Yes, time in the deferred queue is included in pre-active delay in
subsequent delivery attempts. Had you searched your logs for the
full history of the queue-id, you would
I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a private
TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything going
through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a legitimate
domain, so at least I can deal with bounces and the sort.
Starting:
Thanks for the first-hand input, both on- and off-list. The responses
show that there is a massive problem with what Rumsfeld called the
unknown unknowns.
That is, except for those who have total control over their clients,
people generally have no idea what legacy systems might be sending
On 9/24/2014 9:12 AM, Postfix wrote:
I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a
private TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything
going through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a
legitimate domain, so at least I can deal with bounces and
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:37:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this
RFC
within Postfix for 2.12 (or
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
2) maximum 1000 mails per day
3) maximum X MB output per day
4) exclude some users (for example, mailman)
Where do I start?
On 24.09.2014, at 15:06, Nikolaos Milas nmi...@noa.gr wrote:
We already have two production mail servers, vmail1 and vmail2, running
postfix/dovecot (with virtual users on LDAP), each running on a separate data
center.
Same here, called mx1 and mx2.
vmail1 is the main one (i.e. the one
LuKreme:
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
2) maximum 1000 mails per day
3) maximum X MB output per day
4) exclude some users (for example, mailman)
Hello,
You should have a look at this postfix policy server : http://postfwd.org
Le 24 sept. 2014 18:46, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com a écrit :
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum
Am 24.09.2014 um 18:45 schrieb LuKreme:
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
not per user but per client IP
anvil_rate_time_unit = 1800s
On 2014-09-24 10:38, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/24/2014 9:12 AM, Postfix wrote:
I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a
private TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything
going through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a
legitimate domain, so
On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:57 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 24.09.2014 um 18:45 schrieb LuKreme:
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
not per user but
On 2014-09-23 A. Schulze wrote:
wietse:
Dammit, I want to hear from people who expect to have problems
or not.
OK, I don't expect problems for /my/ systems
because I already explicit set 'append_dot_mydomain = no'.
Same here.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
Abstractions save us time working,
What you can do is create a restriction class to check the sender
and the recipient, and reject the message if both match. The
general procedure is outlined here, with some examples similar to
what you're asking:
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
I don't see how this
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:58:46PM -0400, Postfix wrote:
As it stands today, the mxrelay box is what every box sends mail to
initially, with local mail being sent to the internal mailhost, and
everything else to an upstream MX box that has connectivity (it's third
party not managed by me)
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fox
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:24 AM
To: 'postfix users'
Subject: RE: header checks for a relay client
What you can do is create a restriction
I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
/etc/aliases I have:
root:my.m...@example.com
If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
alias above if I mail root it does not make it.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Leam
--
Mind on a Mission
Am 24.09.2014 um 19:55 schrieb leam hall:
I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
/etc/aliases I have:
root:my.m...@example.com
If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
alias above if I mail root it does not make it.
Thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:55:03PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
/etc/aliases I have:
root:my.m...@example.com
If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
alias above if I mail root it does not make
On 2014-09-24 13:40, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:58:46PM -0400, Postfix wrote:
As it stands today, the mxrelay box is what every box sends mail to
initially, with local mail being sent to the internal mailhost, and
everything else to an upstream MX box that has
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:55:03PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
/etc/aliases I have:
root:my.m...@example.com
If I manually send to
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
Thoughts?
The answer is in the logs.
I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
The answer is still in the logs.
--
Viktor.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
Thoughts?
The answer is in the logs.
I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
The answer is still in the logs.
--
The unionmap is available as of postfix-2.12-20140923.
unionmap:{map1, .., mapN} sends each query to all specified lookup
tables and concatenates all found results, separated by comma.
At its core this does the same thing as Roel's patch, but the user
interface reflects some recent
On 9/24/2014 12:49 PM, Michael Fox wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fox
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:24 AM
To: 'postfix users'
Subject: RE: header checks for a relay client
What
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM, leam hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
Thoughts?
The answer is in the logs.
I've run newaliases and reloaded
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM, leam hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM, leam hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
Thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:54:58PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
The answer is in the logs.
I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
The answer is still in the logs.
Odd...
The answer is still in the logs. Post all the LOGS for a queue-id
that was a mail sent to
Thanks much.
That looks about right.
Good Practice Note: anchor/narrow your expressions to make them as
specific as possible to prevent unexpected behavior. This is
especially important if you intend to discard mail:
/@client[1-6]\.domain2\.com$/
/@yahoogroups\.com$/
-- Noel Jones
As I said, the to field in the mail relay was root@myserver, not
my.n...@example.com.
What, exactly, are you looking for?
Leam
--
Mind on a Mission
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:07 schrieb leam hall:
As I said, the to field in the mail relay was root@myserver, not
my.n...@example.com.
What, exactly, are you looking for?
damned if somebody would know what happens he would
not ask for the logs and if you would understand
what happens you would
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:07:48PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
As I said, the to field in the mail relay was root@myserver, not
my.n...@example.com.
What, exactly, are you looking for?
I thought I mentioned logs...
--
Viktor.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
what is so hard about *post every line* of the log
related to a specific message instead waste everybodys
time?
Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that won't let you
post logs on a publicly archived
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:21 schrieb leam hall:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
what is so hard about *post every line* of the log
related to a specific message instead waste everybodys
time?
Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the relay_transport that results in a bounce being generated by
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
no, but you are the only person even not trying to anonymize
them in a consistent way and not mention that from the very
first begin instead ignore repeated aksing for logs
Understood. The issue is that I don't know
Michael McCallister:
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the relay_transport that results in a bounce
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the relay_transport that results in a bounce being generated by
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:50 schrieb leam hall:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
no, but you are the only person even not trying to anonymize
them in a consistent way and not mention that from the very
first begin instead ignore repeated aksing for logs
On 9/24/2014 3:21 PM, leam hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that won't let you
post logs on a publicly archived internet site?
Probably, since there is absolutely no sane reason for such a thing.
Thank you for wasting everyone's time.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:50:35PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
The logs show that the to= field is root@myhost.mydomain on the
server sending mail.
Therefore it seems the transport is not using the local(8) delivery
agent and local aliases(5) don't apply. Proper confirmation requires
logs.
In my
On 9/24/2014 12:52 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael McCallister:
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:41 AM -0400 Wietse Venema
wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
If the queue is congested, then separate transports do not help
with mail in the incoming and deferred queues. It is like being
stuck in traffic on the access road to the airport.
With a congested
--- 1292,1313
const char *myname = reject_unknown_mailhost;
int dns_status;
DNS_RR *dummy;
+ const char *aname;
if (msg_verbose)
msg_info(%s: %s, myname, name);
+ /*
+ * Fix 20140924: convert domain to ASCII.
+ */
+ #ifndef
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
You can either post logs and the contents of the transport table,
or solve the problem yourself based on the information provided.
--
Viktor.
Using some of you cached replies from 2007, as well. :)
On 24 Sep 2014, at 11:16 , Ansgar Wiechers li...@planetcobalt.net wrote:
On 2014-09-23 A. Schulze wrote:
I already explicit set 'append_dot_mydomain = no'.
Same here.
Is there any simple way to test if setting this will break things other than
setting it and watching the logs?
--
The way I
53 matches
Mail list logo
