Hi,
I wonder if there is a builtin feature to make Postfix switch return
codes on address lookup errors, i.e. in our case if the LDAP directory
is temporarily unavailable?
If not I guess we could use a script and a temporary bounce.cf.
Ideas welcome.
Thanks,
--
per
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2009 at 21:49 CEST,
Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
I wonder if there is a builtin feature to make Postfix switch return
codes on address lookup errors, i.e. in our case if the LDAP directory
is temporarily unavailable?
No. To what should the rejection
Wietse Venema wrote:
Per olof Ljungmark:
Our MX's use a LDAP directory to lookup valid addresses. Now, if this
directory for some reason becomes temporarily unavailable, postfix will
return a 5xx error for ALL incoming messages.
Sorry, that is a well-known bug in YOUR SYSTEM LI
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Monday, May 25, 2009 at 22:35 CEST,
Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Sorry, that is a well-known bug in YOUR SYSTEM LIBRARY.
Postfix uses the SYSTEM LIBRARY function getpwnam() to look up the
user name, and when LDAP is busted, YOUR SYSTEM LIBRARY
Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2009 at 23:13 CEST,
> Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>
>> Magnus Bäck wrote:
>>
>>>> May 20 09:59:24 postfix/smtpd[77250]: NOQUEUE: reject:
>>>> RCPT from [IP.HERE]: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
>>>> a
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 5/26/2009, Per olof Ljungmark (p...@bsdlabs.com) wrote:
>> And if it is wrong that Postfix responds with "user unknown" when the
>> directory is unavailable, what SHOULD it be? "Don't know"?
>
> You're not listening.
&
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> In our view Postfix should not respond with 5xx when it cannot contact
>> the LDAP servers. This is not a fault with Postfix at all, it is us that
>
> What evidence exists that POSTFIX contacts the LDAP server?
May 26 12:53:59
Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/5/26 Per olof Ljungmark :
>> May 26 08:13:41 terrapin postfix/smtpd[79633]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>> from sender.server[1.2.3.4]: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
>> address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table;
>> from= to= proto=ESMTP
>
Hi,
We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
We already implemented restrictions on concurrency and number of
recipients per message not to trigger various filters at the receiving
end, and now I thought that ma
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
>> it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
>
> No, this is inaccurate.
>
> In reality, Postfix writes recipients t
All,
I'm in the process of updating OS and software on my laptop and got into
a problem I've never seen before.
OS is FreeBSD 9-STABLE
Postfix is 2.9.0
Sending mail works,
- Unencrypted to port 25
- With TLS to port 465 and 587
but does NOT work authenticated with SASL.
My guess is I screwed som
On 02/12/12 20:15, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Feb 12 00:10:18 x61s-po postfix/smtp[31030]: warning: per-session SASL
>> client initialization: generic failure
>> Feb 12 00:10:18 x61s-po postfix/smtp[31030]: fatal: SASL per-connection
>> initializat
Hi,
Got this error after changing the sasl_password in sasl_passwd. This is
on a host that relays all mail to one destination as specified in
"relayhost =". Nothing else was changed.
Same thing happened now on four different boxes and the only item
changed on all of them was the password in sasl_
On 11/21/12 23:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> postfix/smtp[49073]: warning: SASL authentication failure: GSSAPI Error:
>> Miscellaneous failure (see text) (open(/tmp/krb5cc_125): No such file
>> or directory)
>
> Postfix is the messenger that rep
Hi all,
We've had a working configuration since a few years where we allow
authenticated users to relay mail even if the sender address does not
match a local user and the recipient is non-local.
Now this is about to change.
So, if the sender is *authenticated*:
- from local-user@local-domain t
On 2013-03-17 11:05, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2013-03-17 Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>> We've had a working configuration since a few years where we allow
>> authenticated users to relay mail even if the sender address does not
>> match a local user and the recipient is
On 2013-03-18 12:07, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>>> I'd recommend separating authenticated from unauthenticated submission.
>>> Enable submission (port 587) with authentication required, and remove
>>> permit_sasl_authenticated from the
On 2013-03-18 17:55, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> On 2013-03-18 12:07, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Per olof Ljungmark:
>>>> I'd recommend separating authenticated from unauthenticated submission.
>>>> Enable submission (port 587) with authentication required, and
Hi all,
Hopefully I can explain this good enough for someone to understand and
perhaps even suggest a solution.
Our email system is built from a LDAP directory that contains all the
necessary information about our users. A box receives mail from the MX's
and routes it according to the information
On 2013-06-08 05:24, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> On 08/06/13 03:48, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hopefully I can explain this good enough for someone to understand and
>> perhaps even suggest a solution.
>>
>> Our email system is built from
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
Per olof Ljungmark:
Hi all,
Hopefully I can explain this good enough for someone to understand and
perhaps even suggest a solution.
Our email system is built from a LDAP directory that contains all the
necessary information about our users. A box receives mail
Quoting Viktor Dukhovni :
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 07:00:54PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
>http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps
>http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
>
>Wietse
Yes, but the problem seems to be that th
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
Per olof Ljungmark:
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hopefully I can explain this good enough for someone to understand and
>> perhaps even suggest a solution.
>>
>> Our email system is bu
Hi,
We have a problem with one receiving domain, we see a bounce as in the
subject.
I think this is an Exchange server that forwards the message to another
Exchange box that refuses to receive it.
If the problem is in our end, what can be done to mitigate it?
The Echange MX in their end respond
On 2015-08-28 12:30, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have a problem with one receiving domain, we see a bounce as in the
>> subject.
>>
>> I think this is an Exchange server that forwards the message to another
>> Exchange box
On 2015-08-28 18:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 05:59:08PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>
>> Yes, that helped with Thunderbird but not from Horde/IMP where it still
>> bounces the same way.
>>
>> The difference seems to be that IMP sends a
On 2015-08-28 19:55, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 28.08.2015 um 19:46 schrieb Per olof Ljungmark:
>> On 2015-08-28 18:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 05:59:08PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, that helped with Thun
We would like to bcc all mail originating from a single host name/IP but
unsure how this can be achieved.
Ideas?
Thanks!
//per
28 matches
Mail list logo
