> On Oct 2, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>> With ifconfig being deprecated on Linux, does that mean that network
>> settings specified with newer commands that replace ifconfig will not
>> work ?
>
> I'm not entirely sure, but I would venture to say that it means that
> ifconfig libraries a
Hello I just finished setting up FreeIPA with Dovecot + Postfix + Saslauthd.
I can easily access to mails using imap via dovecot with gssapi
authentication and postfix also delivering mails very well. But I cannot
send email from postfix using gssapi authentication (plain and login
authentication w
On 03/10/17 09:09, J Doe wrote:
> In man I see that the “subnet” option for “mynetworks_style” is
> listed as being supported in Postfix < 3.0. Does this mean that
> post-Postfix 3.0 this option is deprecated ?
The full line in the docs you're referencing is:
(default: Postfix >= 3.0: host, Postf
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
>
> Hi,
> For this part :
>
> “On Linux, this works correctly only with interfaces specified with the
> ifconfig command”
>
> I think they are saying you can find valid interface names using the ifconfig
> command.
> The new way in RHEL 7
New server, new IP address, same domain name?
Could be that you're dealing with DNS transition delays. Check the TTLs on
your domain records!
Original message From: "Fazzina, Angelo"
Date: 10/2/17 1:24 PM (GMT-07:00) To:
njo...@megan.vbhcs.org, postfix-users@postfix.org Subj
Hi, sorry if I posted in non-plain text format, did not know that was an issue.
Will watch for it next time.
I have gone through 2 guys in security/networking department today and was able
to finally prove it was firewall and not my postfix config being "wrong".
I even turned off SELinux and ip
Hi,
For this part :
“On Linux, this works correctly only with interfaces specified with the
ifconfig command”
I think they are saying you can find valid interface names using the ifconfig
command.
The new way in RHEL 7 is "ip addr" replaces "ifconfig".
This:
does that mean that network sett
Hello,
I have two questions regarding the “mynetworks_style” parameter in main.cf.
In man I see that the “subnet” option for “mynetworks_style” is listed as being
supported in Postfix < 3.0. Does this mean that post-Postfix 3.0 this option
is deprecated ?
I also note that the “subnet” option
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 06:31:07PM +, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
> smtpd[13106]: 6359630038E5: client=angelo.uits.uconn.edu[137.99.80.129]
> cleanup[13111]: 6359630038E5:
> message-id=<39f07e3f-c6fe-642b-26b3-8964efda4...@appmail.uconn.edu>
> qmgr[13103]: 6359630038E5: from=, size=648,
> nrcpt=1
[Please use plain text next time. Thanks]
On 10/2/2017 1:31 PM, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
>
> Oct 2 14:24:43 mta5 postfix/smtp[13114]: connect to
> uconn-mail-onmicrosoft-com.mail.protection.outlook.com[207.46.163.106]:25:
> Connection timed out
"connection timed out" almost always means some sort
Hi,
Ready to pull my hair out herei have a server running 2.6 and everything
works fine.
Trying to build new server with postfix 2.10.1
I have my postconf -n and postfix logs of my test email. This data is from
the new 2.10.1 box.
Do you need anything else ?
Oct 2 14:23:43 mta5 postfix/sm
It has now been confirmed by the mailman3 team that the map generation for
the regexp files in mailman is incomplete. They are working on a solution.
For those interested, see my post here:
https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/401.
On 02 Oct 2017, at 09:29, Vedran Vucic wrote:
> I installed Postifx on OpenLeap 42.3 openSuse.
> Firstly, I had issue that domain with record was not found and I defined
> in main.cf that
> inet_protocols=ipv4
records are for IPv6
> After that I tried to send mail but neither mail was
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> Note this may *severely* delay deliveries, depending on the sender's
> retry policy. If a message arrives with 100 recipients, the sender
> will need to retry 99 times, which will likely take a very long time.
It violates SMTP standards. In
On 10/2/2017 11:47 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
Yes, for sure. Extra recipients will get a 4xx response.
Note this may*severely* delay deliveries, depending on the sender's
retry policy. If a message arrives with 100 recipients, the sender
will need to retry 99 times, which will likely take a very lo
On 10/2/2017 10:17 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 10/2/2017 11:14 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_recipient_limit
> I don't think we are talking about the same thing. If I set this to
> 1, I would expect a 5xx for an email with more than one recipient.
> Do
I installed Postifx on OpenLeap 42.3 openSuse.
Firstly, I had issue that domain with record was not found and I
defined in main.cf that
inet_protocols=ipv4
After that I tried to send mail but neither mail was received nor I I have
got in /var/spool/postofix/defer report that message is deferre
On 10/2/2017 11:14 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_recipient_limit
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. If I set this to 1,
I would expect a 5xx for an email with more than one recipient. Do you
know for sure?
Regards,
KAM
On 10/2/2017 10:04 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 10/1/2017 8:15 PM, MRob wrote:
>> Hello, short of Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR) becoming
>> standard, may I ask how administrators are faking it? I understand
>> you can temp-fail all but the first rcpt-to, but how to do this in
>> Postfix?
On 10/1/2017 8:15 PM, MRob wrote:
Hello, short of Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR) becoming standard,
may I ask how administrators are faking it? I understand you can
temp-fail all but the first rcpt-to, but how to do this in Postfix?
Does it require a custom milter? Surely there must be a p
Wietse Venema:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 09:18:44AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > When the concurrency limit for "[addr]:port" permits, the queue
> > > > manager would call smtp(8) again (with the original delivery request
> > > > and the list of already used address
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> An SMTP nexthop corresponds to an unknown
>> (to the queue manager) set of destination MX hosts. Lots of domains
>> have various google, outlook.com, ... MX hosts, but there's no way
>> to know this without doing the MX lookup first. How
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 09:18:44AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > When the concurrency limit for "[addr]:port" permits, the queue
> > > manager would call smtp(8) again (with the original delivery request
> > > and the list of already used addresses, and smtp(8) would attem
23 matches
Mail list logo
