On 17 Apr 2020, at 0:57, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Wietse Venema
wrote:
Corrected code follows (missing do/done).
Save to file, chmod +x name-of-file, don't run this script from
cron.
It needs to be started at boot time, or before you make a VPN
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Wietse Venema
wrote:
> Corrected code follows (missing do/done).
>
> Save to file, chmod +x name-of-file, don't run this script from
> cron.
>
> It needs to be started at boot time, or before you make a VPN
> connection.
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> while :
> do
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:40:59PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> TC bit is for truncation, and means that the complete response would
> have been larger than 512 bytes and was truncated to whatever number
> of whole RRs fit in 512 bytes.
Actually whole RRsets. Nameservers must not truncate in the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:27:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I don't understand your PTR example. It seems such a fringe case that
> >> people produce larger PTR responses because they add all virtual hosts
> >> to the reverse DNS zone. Sure, it happens, but not often.
> >
> > I think
On 16 Apr 2020, at 13:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Any 'improvements' in Postfix DNSSEC support will have to be developed
> in the Postfix 3.6 release cycle. The results from those 'improvements'
> will never be merged back into Postfix 3.5 and earlier.
Is this planned for 3.6, or are you speaking
On 14 Apr 2020, at 11:42, Rick King wrote:
> We were thinking using a header_check rule, something like this; but didn't
> work due to the "backtracking limit exceeded" warning.
The From: header is entirely valid, and the issue is the user’s MUA is not
showing the full header (in an effort to
Florian Weimer:
> * Wietse Venema:
>
> > Vladimir Lomov:
> >> I'm a bit bewildered. Does this mean that all is Ok with glibc 2.31 with
> >> 'options trust-ad' and postfix 3.5.0 or it is depend strongly on used
> >> 'options'?
> >
> > This patch avoids the need to add options to resolv.conf.
>
>
* Wietse Venema:
> Vladimir Lomov:
>> I'm a bit bewildered. Does this mean that all is Ok with glibc 2.31 with
>> 'options trust-ad' and postfix 3.5.0 or it is depend strongly on used
>> 'options'?
>
> This patch avoids the need to add options to resolv.conf.
Does Postfix perform its own DNSSEC
On 4/16/2020 6:25 AM, natan maciej milaszewski wrote:
Hi
System debian 9 and postfix 3.1.14-0+deb9u1
This is only MX server.
In external server (zabbix) i add a trigger to send e-mail to my MX (1
e-mail per min)
and add zabbix (86.xxx.xxx.xxx) to mynetworks in my MX server
Al works fine but
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:47:00AM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
> Not chrooted.
>
> # postconf -Mf
> smtp unix - - n - - smtp
> relay unix - - n - - smtp
Please add:
smtpv unix - - n - -
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 16:15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> >On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:40, natan maciej milaszewski
> wrote:
> >> Sorry about probably dumbest questions. What does it really mean?
> >>
> >> 552 5.3.4 Message size exceeds fixed limit
> >>
> >> Apr 16 16:03:48 thebe4
Vladimir Lomov:
> I'm a bit bewildered. Does this mean that all is Ok with glibc 2.31 with
> 'options trust-ad' and postfix 3.5.0 or it is depend strongly on used
> 'options'?
This patch avoids the need to add options to resolv.conf.
Wietse
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:40, natan maciej milaszewski wrote:
Sorry about probably dumbest questions. What does it really mean?
552 5.3.4 Message size exceeds fixed limit
Apr 16 16:03:48 thebe4 postfix/smtpd[11692]: NOQUEUE: reject: MAIL from
mail-il1-f169.google.com[209.85.166.169]: 552
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:40, natan maciej milaszewski wrote:
>
> Hi
> Sorry about probably dumbest questions. What does it really mean?
>
> 552 5.3.4 Message size exceeds fixed limit
>
> Apr 16 16:03:48 thebe4 postfix/smtpd[11692]: NOQUEUE: reject: MAIL from
>
Hello,
** Wietse Venema [2020-04-16 10:31:56 -0400]:
> With the minnimal patch below, it looks like Postfix DANE support
> will continue to work after a breaking change in Glibc 2.31. Tested
> on Fedora 32 beta.
> This patch also deals with the 'multiple definition' errors caused
> by a
Hi
Sorry about probably dumbest questions. What does it really mean?
552 5.3.4 Message size exceeds fixed limit
Apr 16 16:03:48 thebe4 postfix/smtpd[11692]: NOQUEUE: reject: MAIL from
mail-il1-f169.google.com[209.85.166.169]: 552 5.3.4 Message size exceeds
fixed limit; proto=ESMTP helo=
Apr 16
With the minnimal patch below, it looks like Postfix DANE support
will continue to work after a breaking change in Glibc 2.31. Tested
on Fedora 32 beta.
This patch also deals with the 'multiple definition' errors caused
by a breaking change in GCC 10. Also tested on Fedora 32 beta.
Plan is to
Vieri Di Paola:
> postfix/smtpd[22926]: AB3AB12404F: client=unknown[10.2.0.1]
> postfix/cleanup[23782]: AB3AB12404F:
> message-id=<1587025299.219481.935321531.1891234@external.domain.org>
> postfix/qmgr[22889]: AB3AB12404F: from=,
> size=2855, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> postfix/smtp[22953]:
Hi
System debian 9 and postfix 3.1.14-0+deb9u1
This is only MX server.
In external server (zabbix) i add a trigger to send e-mail to my MX (1
e-mail per min)
and add zabbix (86.xxx.xxx.xxx) to mynetworks in my MX server
Al works fine but sometimes i get in log:
Apr 16 12:38:21 thebe4
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:12 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:58:44AM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
>
> > > > The collate script seems to confirm that the non-delivery
> > > > notifications have been sent out. I rest assured.
> > >
> > > And what is the output of:
> > >
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
