Pretty sure this is a transport map invocation which is needed.
Our situation is that we have a server a.example.com which is receiving
email for the entire example.com domain. What we wish to do is to have
any email that is directed to an example.com email address *not* be sent
to the IP whic
Hi
For test i runnig gallera claster + haproxy
haproxy:
.
listen galera-test
bind 10.10.10.10:3307
balance leastconn
mode tcp
option tcplog
option tcpka
option httpchk
server sql1 10.10.10.11:3306 check port 9200 inter 12000 rise 2 fall 2
server sql2 10.10.10.12:3306 check port 9200 inter 12
natan:
> Hi
> For test i runnig gallera claster + haproxy
>
> haproxy:
> .
> listen galera-test
> bind 10.10.10.10:3307
> balance leastconn
> mode tcp
> option tcplog
> option tcpka
> option httpchk
>
> server sql1 10.10.10.11:3306 check port 9200 inter 12000 rise 2 fall 2
> server sql2 10.10
charlie derr:
> Pretty sure this is a transport map invocation which is needed.
>
> Our situation is that we have a server a.example.com which is receiving
> email for the entire example.com domain. What we wish to do is to have
> any email that is directed to an example.com email address *not*
To forward mail from a primary DNS MX host to a system that is not
a DNS MX host,
https://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#backup
Wietse
Thanks so very much; this is great.
~c
--
Charlie Derr Director of Instructional Technology
Bard College at Simon's Rock
W dniu 24.01.2023 o 12:05, Wietse Venema pisze:
natan:
Hi
For test i runnig gallera claster + haproxy
haproxy:
.
listen galera-test
bind 10.10.10.10:3307
balance leastconn
mode tcp
option tcplog
option tcpka
option httpchk
server sql1 10.10.10.11:3306 check port 9200 inter 12000 rise 2 fal
Hi again,
We have a server which is running a single instance of postfix 2.10
The plan is to replace that single instance with two separate postfix instances
using the postmulti functionality.
What would the best plan of action be in terms of "removing" the existing instance (after we shut it
natan:
> W dniu 24.01.2023 o?12:05, Wietse Venema pisze:
> > natan:
> >> Hi
> >> For test i runnig gallera claster + haproxy
> >>
> >> haproxy:
> >> .
> >> listen galera-test
> >> bind 10.10.10.10:3307
> >> balance leastconn
> >> mode tcp
> >> option tcplog
> >> option tcpka
> >> option httpchk
W dniu 24.01.2023 o 13:03, Wietse Venema pisze:
natan:
W dniu 24.01.2023 o?12:05, Wietse Venema pisze:
natan:
Hi
For test i runnig gallera claster + haproxy
haproxy:
.
listen galera-test
bind 10.10.10.10:3307
balance leastconn
mode tcp
option tcplog
option tcpka
option httpchk
server sql
Hi everyone,
I'm currently investigating a situation that milters are called twice,
once by smtpd, and once by cleanup, when both smtpd_milters and
non_smtpd_milters are configured (to the same values).
The graphic on https://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html suggests that
this is normal be
Dnia 24.01.2023 o godz. 23:01:15 Yannik Sembritzki pisze:
>
> I'm currently investigating a situation that milters are called
> twice, once by smtpd, and once by cleanup, when both smtpd_milters
> and non_smtpd_milters are configured (to the same values).
>
> The graphic on https://www.postfix.or
In addition to Jaroslaw's reply:
On 24/01/2023 15:01, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
Is it sufficient to only configure non_smtpd_milters, to have all mail
(including bounces) run through the milter?
I don't think there's any way to get bounces through the milters, short
of rewriting the bounce
On 24.01.23 23:15, EML wrote:
I don't think there's any way to get bounces through the milters,
short of rewriting the bounce code.
Have a look at the "Signing internally-generated bounce messages"
paragraph on https://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html.
/internal_mail_filter_classes = bounce
On 24.01.23 23:09, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
No. The Postfix documentation says:
non_smtpd_milters (default: empty)
A list of Milter (mail filter) applications for new mail that does not
arrive via the Postfix smtpd(8) server. This includes local submission via
the sendmail(1) command line, new
Dnia 24.01.2023 o godz. 23:28:56 Yannik Sembritzki pisze:
>
> I guess the best way to combat this would be to use spamassassin as
> a milter as well?
> Or do you have another idea?
I had exactly the same problem when I was configuring DKIM on my server, and
I did exactly this - switched from usin
Yannik Sembritzki:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm currently investigating a situation that milters are called twice,
> once by smtpd, and once by cleanup, when both smtpd_milters and
> non_smtpd_milters are configured (to the same values).
No. THy are called twice because you have a post-queue content
I guess the best way to combat this would be to use spamassassin as
a milter as well?
Or do you have another idea?
I had exactly the same problem when I was configuring DKIM on my server, and
I did exactly this - switched from using SA as a post-queue filter to using
it as a milter. Works good f
On 24.01.23 23:09, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
No. The Postfix documentation says:
non_smtpd_milters (default: empty)
A list of Milter (mail filter) applications for new mail that does not
arrive via the Postfix smtpd(8) server. This includes local submission via
the sendmail(1) command line, new
On 25.01.23 01:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You are right. The milter is called twice, because a FILTER
(spamassassin in this case) is applied, after which the message is
re-injected using pickup, which triggeres the second milter run
during cleanup. (Still, I think the graphic on the MILT
On 2023-01-24 at 19:33:56 UTC-0500 (Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:33:56 +0800)
Yannik Sembritzki
is rumored to have said:
On 25.01.23 01:48, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You are right. The milter is called twice, because a FILTER
(spamassassin in this case) is applied, after which the message is
re-in
20 matches
Mail list logo
