I need some help getting a transport map setup for the purpose of an auto
responder. I'm certain that the problem is caused by something I've done
wrong, but I just don't see what the problem is.
I have set things up according to the O'Rielly Postfix book. I have done the
following:
1: add t
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:12:59AM +, Wesley Witt wrote:
> 4: add the entry to the virtual alias file
What entry? Why?
> What I'm seeing is an entry in syslog saying "User unknown in
> virtual alias table". It is looking for the address that is defined
> in the transport file. It appears
: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:34 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Transport Not Working
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:12:59AM +, Wesley Witt wrote:
> 4: add the entry to the virtual alias file
What entry? Why?
> What I'm seeing is an entry in syslog saying "User u
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:34:35PM +, Wesley Witt wrote:
> Can you explain what you mean by "All valid addresses in "example.com"
> need to be rewritten to some other domain"? I only have 1 domain.
I quote:
Addresses in virtual alias domains are undeliverable unless
aliased to a rea
I apologize if this topic seems basic or I'm missing something obvious
here, but after much googling and looking to Ralph's book for answers,
I am still unclear on this...
Despite creating a slow transport for yahoo and verifying that the
unix socket 'slow' exists, it seems that it's not being use
Thanks, I think, that the problem was the chaotic situation in the main.cf.
I've corrected it accordingly (see below).
smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Debian/GNU)
biff = no
append_dot_mydomain = no
readme_directory = no
default_database_type = hash
myhostname = myhost
alias_maps = h
fursink:
> I am still unclear on this...
>
> Despite creating a slow transport for yahoo and verifying that the
> unix socket 'slow' exists, it seems that it's not being used. Our
> connections to yahoo are still occurring at a rate faster than
> specified here in main.cf params and there is no 'p
I should have included that this step was also done
and that transport.db exists.
- Andrew
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/%28more%29-slow-transport-not-working-tp25471227p25492006.html
Sent from the Postfix mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thursday 17 September 2009 12:11:22 AndrewLong wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
> /etc/postfix/transport::
> yahoo.com slow:
>
> followed by postmap hash:/etc/postfix/transport
>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 12:11:22 AndrewLong wrote:
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
>> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
>
>> /etc/postfix/transport::
>> yahoo.com s
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:27:45PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/smtp[27618]: EBC6F87D49:
> to=, relay=e.mx.mail.yahoo.com[216.39.53.1]:25,
> delay=3.7, delays=0.02/0/0.64/3, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok
> dirdel)
> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/qmgr[27609]: EBC6F87D49: r
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:27:45PM -0400, fursink wrote:
>
>> Sep 17 13:25:55 tmail postfix/smtp[27618]: EBC6F87D49:
>> to=, relay=e.mx.mail.yahoo.com[216.39.53.1]:25,
>> delay=3.7, delays=0.02/0/0.64/3, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok
>> di
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport from working
> at all?
No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
syslog_name" does not work as expected in 2.3.3. Rather, the syslog_name
is inherited from t
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
>
>> Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport from working
>> at all?
>
> No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
> syslog_name" does not wor
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:06:19PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> >> related - if slow transport is working, will the log show
> >> "postfix/postfix-slow" rather than "postfix/smtp"?
> >
> > No.
>
> Than what is the preferred method to verify that a transport is being used
> for the domain it configured
>> Than what is the preferred method to verify that a transport is being used
>> for the domain it configured for...
>
> Generally, you don't need to verify this. If the transport table is defined
> it is used as advertised. If you absolutely must check:
>
> - Send mail to two users that should
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:20:19PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> Then I have to ask, what effect does the "-o syslog_name=postfix-slow"
> have in master.cf?
> I read an old (2006) thread indicating the override does not work, is
> that still true?
It works with Postfix ~2.5 and later.
When "bottom-pos
AndrewLong:
>
>
>
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > You forgot the transport table configuration. Without this,
> > Postfix will never use the "slow" transport.
> >
> > Wietse
> >
>
> /etc/postfix/transport::
> yahoo.com slow:
>
> followed by postmap hash:/etc/postfix/transport
>
>
On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > from working at all?
>
> No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
> syslog_name" does no
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:33:01PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > from working at all?
> >
> > No, and in fac
/dev/rob0:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > from working at all?
> >
> > No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:40:56 Wietse Venema wrote:
> /dev/rob0:
> > On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > > from working at all?
>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:19:02PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> I was asking; I didn't know it was a bug originally. :) I thought it
> was formerly a master(8)-only setting, whereas now, it can be set
> per-daemon with -o.
The daemons processed the option too late for it to actually change the
log t
23 matches
Mail list logo
