postmulti

how i can config a postfix/postmulti server for work with two ips ?

Re: postmulti

Hi, On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antonio Hooper wrote: > how i can config a postfix/postmulti server for work with two ips ? Round-robin in DNS, no? []'s -- Eduardo Júnior GNU/Linux user #423272 :wq

Re: postmulti

* Eduardo Júnior : > Hi, > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antonio Hooper > wrote: > > > how i can config a postfix/postmulti server for work with two ips ? > > > > Round-robin in DNS, no? No. He needs to setup two instances, one using: inet_inte

postmulti woes

Yesterday I ran into a situation where I tried to create a new postfix instance, but the *.proto files where missing (i.e. they were there, but in the wrong place): # postmulti -I postfix-test -e create cp: cannot stat '/etc/postfix/main.cf.proto': No such file or directory Nevert

Error with postmulti

Dear All, Need assistance.. getting an error with postmulti as follows.. is there a fix.? r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -e init r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -I postfix-1 -G mta -e create postfix: warning: dict_open_dlinfo: cannot open /etc/postfix-1/ dynamicmaps.cf. No dynamic maps

Error in postmulti

r...@campaignindia:/etc# postmulti -I postfix-1 -G mta -e create postfix: warning: dict_open_dlinfo: cannot open /etc/postfix-1/ dynamicmaps.cf. No dynamic maps will be allowed. wondering why am i getting this error

postmulti behind NAT

I've been fortunate thus far ;) not to have to set up multiple instances. Now I'm on a job with a definite need for it: hosting company with domains which might possibly be moved to other providers without notice. My solution to the problem was to completely separate submission (outbound, most

Re: postmulti woes

x 3 root root 4096 24. Sep 08:39 /etc/postfix-test/ > drwx-- 2 root root 4096 24. Sep 08:39 /var/lib/postfix-test/ > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 24. Sep 08:39 /var/spool/postfix-test/ > > But when I tried to remove them, postmulti claimed there wasn't an instance > named postf

Re: postmulti woes

:39 /var/lib/postfix-test/ > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 24. Sep 08:39 /var/spool/postfix-test/ > > > > But when I tried to remove them, postmulti claimed there wasn't an instance > > named postfix-test: > > > > # postmulti -i postfix-test -e destroy >

Error no. 2 postmulti

Dear All, Please note that i am getting another error on ubuntu 9.10 machine with postfix 2.6.5 as below r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -e enable r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -p start /usr/lib/postfix/postfix-script: 373: /etc/postfix-1/postfix-script: not found

Re: Error with postmulti

Dhiraj Chatpar: > Dear All, > > Need assistance.. getting an error with postmulti as follows.. is there a > fix.? > > r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -e init > r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -I postfix-1 -G mta -e create > postfix: warning: dict_open_dlinfo: ca

Re: Error in postmulti

Dhiraj Chatpar: > r...@campaignindia:/etc# postmulti -I postfix-1 -G mta -e create > postfix: warning: dict_open_dlinfo: cannot open /etc/postfix-1/ > dynamicmaps.cf. No dynamic maps will be allowed. > > > wondering why am i getting this error That is a DEBIAN extension (

Re: Error in postmulti

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 06:32:48AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Dhiraj Chatpar: > > r...@campaignindia:/etc# postmulti -I postfix-1 -G mta -e create > > postfix: warning: dict_open_dlinfo: cannot open /etc/postfix-1/ > > dynamicmaps.cf. No dynamic maps will be allowed. &g

Re: postmulti behind NAT

/dev/rob0: > The doubt in my mind about this is for mail truly destined to our > hosted domains. It resolves to an Internet (not an internal) IP > address which is in the MX instance's proxy_interfaces setting. We're > in a DC and behind NAT, with that Internet IP address being NATed to > this

Re: postmulti behind NAT

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 05:18:58PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > /dev/rob0: > > The doubt in my mind about this is for mail truly destined to > > our hosted domains. It resolves to an Internet (not an internal) > > IP address which is in the MX instance's proxy_interfaces > > setting. We're in a DC

Re: postmulti behind NAT

/dev/rob0: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 05:18:58PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > /dev/rob0: > > > The doubt in my mind about this is for mail truly destined to > > > our hosted domains. It resolves to an Internet (not an internal) > > > IP address which is in the MX instance's proxy_interfaces > > >

Re: postmulti behind NAT

On 07/21/2013 12:23 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 05:18:58PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: /dev/rob0: The doubt in my mind about this is for mail truly destined to our hosted domains. It resolves to an Internet (not an internal) IP address which is in the MX instance's proxy_interf

Re: postmulti behind NAT

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > Why would you not allow submission to deliver to the hosted > domains ? You can simply add the maps to the existing ones > you use (if any). The point is that we can never be sure that we actually do host any given domain. Suppose a

Re: postmulti behind NAT

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 03:45:35PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote: > They don't have "hairpin NAT" set up, whereby if I try to connect to > this NATed IP address it would go to the router and come back to me. > I'm fine with that, actually; while that would solve the instant > problem, it could be bad i

Re: postmulti woes (patch)

ach out to test any thinkable situation. The problem I > ran into seemed worth to test - at least to me. The patch below adds a test for the proto files (and repeats the previously posted correction to the "-e" usage message). diff --git a/conf/postmulti-script b/conf/postmulti-scrip

postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

Hi, I'm on Postfix 3.4.10 and the following is driving me nuts: $ postmulti -g mta -p status postfix-authrelay/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 28832 postfix-inetgen/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: 30572 $ sudo postmulti -i postfix-authrel

Re: Error no. 2 postmulti

Dhiraj Chatpar: > Dear All, > > Please note that i am getting another error on ubuntu 9.10 machine with > postfix 2.6.5 as below > > r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -e enable > r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -p start > /usr/lib/postfix/p

Re: Error no. 2 postmulti

Wietse Venema put forth on 2/9/2010 8:54 AM: > Dhiraj Chatpar: >> Dear All, >> >> Please note that i am getting another error on ubuntu 9.10 machine with >> postfix 2.6.5 as below >> >> r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -e enable >> r...

Re: Error no. 2 postmulti

Stan Hoeppner: > Wietse Venema put forth on 2/9/2010 8:54 AM: > > Dhiraj Chatpar: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Please note that i am getting another error on ubuntu 9.10 machine with > >> postfix 2.6.5 as below > >> > >> r...@smtp:/et

Re: Error no. 2 postmulti

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 08:57:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > The real problem is that DEBIAN has not caught up on changes in > Postfix file locations. When multi-instance support was introduced, > it was necessary to move files such as postfix-script and postfix-files > from (non-shared) /etc/

postmulti: inet_interfaces for each instance ?

Dear I would like to implement multiple instances on my 2.7 postfix. After read the documentation (perhaps my english is very poor) i need to have a confirmation. did i need to disable master_service_disable and specify an IP address for each instance in inet_interfaces token ? Or Is there a k

[solved] Re: postmulti behind NAT

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38AM +0200, Ulrich Zehl wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 03:45:35PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote: > > They don't have "hairpin NAT" set up, whereby if I try to > > connect to this NATed IP address it would go to the router > > and come back to me. I'm fine with that, actuall

postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Hi, i installed the new postfix-3.0.0 in my arch system, however by default (default main.cf <http://main.cf>) postmulti results in a fatal error for a reason (conflict) i don't understand: > # postmulti -l > postmulti: fatal: instance /etc/postfix, > shlib_directory=/usr/l

Re: postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

Laura Smith: > Hi, > > I'm on Postfix 3.4.10 and the following is driving me nuts: > > $ postmulti -g mta -p status > postfix-authrelay/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: > 28832 > postfix-inetgen/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system i

Re: postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

and the following is driving me nuts: > > $ postmulti -g mta -p status > > postfix-authrelay/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: > > 28832 > > postfix-inetgen/postfix-script: the Postfix mail system is running: PID: > > 30572 > > You'r

Re: postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

Laura Smith: > I'm on Postfix 3.4.10 and the following is driving me nuts: Wietse: > > You're running some commands with sudo and some without. Because > > of that, environment variables and command aliases may differ. > > > > In particular: > > > &g

Re: postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

> > > > > > In particular: > > > > > > PATH determines where the postmulti command is found. > > > > > > MAIL_CONFIG determines what main.cf file it will use. > > > > > > and so on. > > Laura Smith: > > Actually, I've

Re: postmulti: fatal: No matching instances

> > Check the multi_instance name setting in themain.cf file of the > affected instance. > > Was this instance created from scratch with postmulti, or was this > imported as an already existing instance? > > I do not recall why the instance name is needed, that was design

Re: postmulti: inet_interfaces for each instance ?

David Touzeau: > Dear > > I would like to implement multiple instances on my 2.7 postfix. > > After read the documentation (perhaps my english is very poor) i need to > have a confirmation. > > did i need to disable master_service_disable and specify an IP address > for each instance in inet_int

Re: postmulti: inet_interfaces for each instance ?

David Touzeau: > Dear > > I would like to implement multiple instances on my 2.7 postfix. > > After read the documentation (perhaps my english is very poor) i need to > have a confirmation. > > did i need to disable master_service_disable and specify an IP address > for each instance in inet_i

Re: postmulti: inet_interfaces for each instance ?

David Touzeau: > > > David Touzeau: > > Dear > > > > I would like to implement multiple instances on my 2.7 postfix. > > > > After read the documentation (perhaps my english is very poor) i need to > > have a confirmation. > > > > did i need to disable master_service_disable and specify an IP

Re: postmulti: inet_interfaces for each instance ?

David Touzeau: > > > David Touzeau: > > Dear > > > > I would like to implement multiple instances on my 2.7 postfix. > > > > After read the documentation (perhaps my english is very poor) i need to > > have a confirmation. > > > > did i need to disable master_service_disable and specify an IP

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

update: interesting, header_check gives 5xx but user unknown gives correct 4xx response: Jul 30 01:49:01 mailhost postfix-in/smtpd[3685]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from relay3.isp.ro[IP_ADDR]: 450 4.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

Hi, I asked this earlier but maybe skipped your attention. In summary, Why do body/header checks generate 5xx rejects even with soft_bounce=yes? Thanks. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 1:21 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote: > Hi, > I have two issues. > After hard reading of MULTI_INSTANCE_README I've

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On 8/8/2012 4:22 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote: > Hi, > I asked this earlier but maybe skipped your attention. > > In summary, > > Why do body/header checks generate 5xx rejects even with soft_bounce=yes? soft_bounce works as documented. The log may show a 5.x.x extended status code, but th

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > On 8/8/2012 4:22 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote: >> Hi, >> I asked this earlier but maybe skipped your attention. >> >> In summary, >> >> Why do body/header checks generate 5xx rejects even with soft_bounce=yes? > > > soft_bounce works as docu

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

mailing list subscriber: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote: > > On 8/8/2012 4:22 AM, mailing list subscriber wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I asked this earlier but maybe skipped your attention. > >> > >> In summary, > >> > >> Why do body/he

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On 8/9/2012 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > The CLEANUP DAEMON rejects the header with 5cc > > The SMTP DAEMON transforms the reply into 4XX. > > The CLEANUP DAEMON does not know that the SMTP DAEMON has soft_bounce=yes. > maybe a note on the soft_bounce docs? Something like: Note: with "s

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

Noel Jones: > On 8/9/2012 6:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > The CLEANUP DAEMON rejects the header with 5cc > > > > The SMTP DAEMON transforms the reply into 4XX. > > > > The CLEANUP DAEMON does not know that the SMTP DAEMON has soft_bounce=yes. > > > > maybe a note on the soft_bounce do

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes > is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses > that Postfix will log may differ from the responses that Postfix > actually sends or receives. This will b

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:57:00AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote: > On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes > > is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses > > that Postfix will log may differ from t

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

Noel Jones: > On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes > > is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses > > that Postfix will log may differ from the responses that Postfix > > actually sends or

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Noel Jones: >> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes >>> is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses >>> that Postfix will log may differ from the

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

Noel Jones: > On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Noel Jones: > >> On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > >>> It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes > >>> is implemented by modifying server responses. Therefore, the responses > >>> that Postfix will

Re: soft_bounce=yes in postmulti setup

On 8/9/2012 3:06 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Noel Jones: >> On 8/9/2012 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> Noel Jones: On 8/9/2012 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > It might be practical to add a note that in some cases, soft_bounce=yes > is implemented by modifying server responses. The

postmulti and vip with corosync/pacemaker

_maps = local_transport = error:5.1.1 Mailbox unavailable master_service_disable = inet multi_instance_directories = /etc/postfix-mta multi_instance_enable = yes multi_instance_wrapper = ${command_directory}/postmulti -p -- mydestination = mydomain = mydomain.fr myhostname = vm-test-postmulti.mydoma

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Andreas: > Hi, > > i installed the new postfix-3.0.0 in my arch system, however by default > (default main.cf <http://main.cf>) postmulti results in a fatal error > for a reason (conflict) i don't understand: > > > # postmulti -l > > postmulti: fatal: i

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:32:22PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > # postmulti -l > > > postmulti: fatal: instance /etc/postfix, > > > shlib_directory=/usr/lib/postfix conflicts with instance /etc/postfix, > > > daemon_directory=/usr/lib/postfix > &g

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

lled the new postfix-3.0.0 in my arch system, however by default >> (default main.cf <http://main.cf>) postmulti results in a fatal error >> for a reason (conflict) i don't understand: >> >>> # postmulti -l >>> postmulti: fatal: instance /etc/postfix,

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 02:11:34AM +0100, Andreas wrote: > On many systems (Debian, Arch, and probably more) daemon_directory is > /usr/lib/postfix as well, which will lead to a broken multi-instance > capability by default. Note that on BSD systems daemon_directory is /usr/libexec, and Linux FHS

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Dear Viktor, sorry, i got your mail quite delayed... i can confirm this patch working, thank you! > IIRC the main reason for the conflict detection in question is to > avoid use of the shared directories also as per-instance directories. Which is a very good idea and prevents many configuration e

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Andreas: > Since, as you said, some distributions lack /usr/libexec, wouldn't > it be a better idea to leave it up to the package/distribution > maintainers to separate shared objects from shared executables? That is not how Postfix works. With Postfix, things are forbidden unless explicitly permi

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:16:19AM +0100, Andreas wrote: > > This is something the distribution maintainers will have to figure > > out. If you are a distribution maintainer, please DO NOT apply > > the above patch unless it is first adopted upstream. > > Since, as you said, some distributions la

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Viktor Dukhovni: > The upstream Postfix release defaults to > > daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix > > on all but one system type (GNU0 Debian whatever that is), > and even that one should probably be changed to /usr/libexec. Postfix should have its own libexec subdirectory. Unlike comm

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Am 2/18/2015 um 18:39 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: > With 3.0.0 Linux distributions should start using the upstream > default. This does mean that users should remove explicit legacy > default settings of daemon_directory from their main.cf files. > Distribution package upgrades will need to update or

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Am 18.02.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Andreas: Am 2/18/2015 um 18:39 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: With 3.0.0 Linux distributions should start using the upstream default. This does mean that users should remove explicit legacy default settings of daemon_directory from their main.cf files. Distribution pac

Re: postmulti fatal error with 3.0.0

Andreas: > Am 2/18/2015 um 18:39 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: > > With 3.0.0 Linux distributions should start using the upstream > > default. This does mean that users should remove explicit legacy > > default settings of daemon_directory from their main.cf files. > > Distribution package upgrades will

Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

Hi, I am running Postfix ver 3.6.3 on FreeBSD 13. I am trying to run multiple instances of Postfix using Postmulti on a single NIC using aliased IPs. Postmulti doesn't seem to bind the instances to the aliased IPs. I do not get any errors in the maillog and all instances are shown as h

Migrating from Virtual domains to Postmulti setup

. Now I wish to move onto a postmulti setup with separate instances for incoming, outgoing, and a null-client per domain. So that would mean 15 instances of Postfix in total under postmulti. Not sure if I should do this, but I would also like to have another setup that only sends/receives email

Re: postmulti and vip with corosync/pacemaker

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:57:37AM +0100, Olivier Brousselle wrote: > Each instance is marked as disable, there is a script to activate > instances (postmulti -i postfix-mta -e enable ; postmulti -i > postfix-mta -e start) for using with pacemaker. That is: # Turn it on for

Re: postmulti and vip with corosync/pacemaker

Thanks for the reply, So, I can just use postmulti to create instances and then detach them with postmulti -i instance -e deport. And finally modify init script to start instances with postfix -c /directory/of/instance instead of postmulti -i instance -p start. Greetings -- Olivier Le 18

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

Nitin N: > Hi, > > I am running Postfix ver 3.6.3 on FreeBSD 13. > > I am trying to run multiple instances of Postfix using Postmulti on a > single NIC using aliased IPs. Postmulti doesn't seem to bind the instances > to the aliased IPs. I do not get any errors in the m

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

> On 8 Feb 2022, at 6:14 am, Nitin N wrote: > > I am trying to run multiple instances of Postfix using Postmulti on a single > NIC using aliased IPs. Postmulti doesn't seem to bind the instances to the > aliased IPs. I do not get any errors in the maillog and all insta

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

> On 8 Feb 2022, at 6:14 am, Nitin N wrote: > > I wanted to share the configs but my messages got auto-rejected twice for > size >4 characters The way to share concise configurations is: $ postmulti -x /bin/sh -c ' echo "=== $MAIL_CONFIG:&

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

[ Rédigé dans le sens de lecture professionnel. Written in the professional reading direction. ] Le (on) 08/02/2022, Nitin N a écrit (wrote): | I am running Postfix ver 3.6.3 on FreeBSD 13. [...] | I can telnet locally to the first domain as its IP is the real IP, but not | the second domain a

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022, 8:11 pm Viktor Dukhovni, wrote: > > On 8 Feb 2022, at 6:14 am, Nitin N wrote: > > > > I wanted to share the configs but my messages got auto-rejected twice > for size >4 characters > > The way to share concise configurations is: > &g

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:27:17PM +0530, Nitin N wrote: > The way to share concise configurations is: > > $ postmulti -x /bin/sh -c ' > echo "=== $MAIL_CONFIG:" > postconf -nf > echo &qu

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

Dear Victor, I checked out master_service_disable at here <http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#master_service_disable> but I am a bit uncertain of how I should use it. So here is the output of postmulti -l: - - y /usr/local/etc/postfix postf

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

e is the output of postmulti -l: > - - y /usr/local/etc/postfix > postfix-abc - y /usr/local/etc/postfix-abc > postfix-xyz - y /usr/local/etc/postfix-xyz Why do you call those instances "abc" and &qu

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

/postconf.5.html#master_service_disable> but I am a | > bit uncertain of how I should use it. | | Well. Did you understand what it does? Key question :)! | > So here is the output of postmulti -l: | > - - y /usr/local/etc/postfix | > postfix-ab

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 4:44 pm Bastian Blank, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:45:21PM +0530, Nitin N wrote: > > I checked out master_service_disable at here > > but I > am a > > bit uncertain of how I should use it. > > Well. Did y

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

Wietse Venema: > > root master 25573 13 tcp4 192.168.1.11:2525 *:* > > root master 25573 26 tcp4 192.168.0.11:5871 *:* > > Your "second" instance is bound to 192.168.0.11 port 5871, NOT > 192.168.1.12:2526. Have you figured out the cause for this discrepancy?

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

e ... Then create the output instance: # postmulti -I postfix-out -G mta -e create ... The new instance will be created in a "disabled" state: /etc/postfix-out/main.cf

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

gt; MULTI_INSTANCE_README: > ... > Setting up the "output" Postfix instance > ... > Then create the output instance: > > # postmulti -I postfix-out -G mta -e create >

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

Nitin N: > Clarifying to avoid any confusions. > > I have created separate ports for each service in each instance than the > default ones. These are natted to the corresponding public static IP's > default service ports. > > I have to use different ports as if I am not mistaken I cannot share po

Re: Postmulti not binding instances to aliased IPs

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, 9:26 pm Wietse Venema, wrote: > Nitin N: > > Clarifying to avoid any confusions. > > > > I have created separate ports for each service in each instance than the > > default ones. These are natted to the corresponding public static IP's > > default service ports. > > > > I hav

single instance of postfix to 2 via postmulti

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

postmulti woes: Invalid 'delete' option suggested as option in output

Erroneously I tried to use the option 'delete' instead of 'destroy' when I ran the postmulti-command. My fault, but then the output - among many other options - stated, I should use 'delete' instead of 'delete': # postmulti -i postfix-test -e delete po

Re: postmulti woes: Invalid 'delete' option suggested as option in output

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:00:43AM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > Erroneously I tried to use the option 'delete' instead of 'destroy' when I ran > the postmulti-command. My fault, but then the output - among many other > options - stated, I should us