List:
> > If you really want your own queue, you can do that of course, but
> > it is not clear why you would.
>
> The script itself handles persistence of the message. Is postfix even
> capable of being configured to hand off a message via the pipe and
> return immediately or is it always goin
On 11/13/2013 11:12 PM, List wrote:
On 11/13/13, 11:52 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:18:32AM -0600, List wrote:
I am building a script to handle some specific recipients so I will
be using transport to handle their domain. The script may run for a
long period of time
Alberto Mariani -Ad Glamor:
> Hi there,
> how can I chenge transport maps dynamically based on some rules via
> script (like PHP)
1) Use a MySQL or SQLite database.
http://www.postfix.org/mysql_table.5.html
http://www.postfix.org/sqlite_table.5.html
2) Update a textfile, then u
Aaron Bennett:
> Hi,
>
> For reasons beyond my control, one of the hosts we need to relay
> to is occasionally dropping out of dns. We relay to it based on
> an ldap map which returns:
>
> relay:[office365relay.clarku.edu]
>
> That host is a CNAME for an external vendor. It's not hard to guess
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:13 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: transport rule question
> Postfix would defer when it
nce=yes for everything so
> I'll probably created a dedicated transport for that host. Does
> that seem reasonable?
I agree. A dedicated "smtp" transport with "-o soft_bounce=yes"
allows you to make the workaround specific for this destination.
You'll still want to
st or domain name not found. Name
> service error for name=office365relay.clarku.edu type=A: Host not found)
Re-configure you transport tables to bypass the CNAME:
transport:
clarku.edu smtp:[clarku-edu.mail.protection.outlook.com]
That'll reveal whether the proble
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:44:15PM +, Aaron Bennett wrote:
> Thanks, Wietse. I don't want soft_bounce=yes for everything so
> I'll probably created a dedicated transport for that host. Does
> that seem reasonable?
You'll also have messages addressed to invalid recip
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:44:15PM +, Aaron Bennett wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Wietse. I don't want soft_bounce=yes for everything so
> > I'll probably created a dedicated transport for that host. Does
> > that seem reasonable?
>
>
ut the hostname
in question into /etc/hosts, and update that via periodic DNS
lookups (which are NOPs when they fail). Then use a transport with
smtp_host_lookup=native.
This would work quite well if the C-library supports multiple A
records for the same name in /etc/hosts as with say
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
se let me know.
main.cf
relayhost = [relay.dnsexit.com]:2525
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
virtual_alias_domains = mydomain.com
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/lists/virtual
master.cf
==
inforeply unix - n n - - pipe
flags=F user=a
le unless
aliased to a real domain. Transport overrides can't help.
Either the domain should not be a virtual alias domain, or you
need to rewrite the address to a real domain before adding
transport overrides (for the rewritten address).
by "real domain" I mean a doma
Charles Marcus wrote:
Hi,
I know this is simple, but I never had to do it, so wanna check myself...
For outbound mail, do transport entries supersede the relayhost
parameter in main.cf?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relayhost has your answer.
Brian
Charles Marcus wrote:
Hi,
I know this is simple, but I never had to do it, so wanna check myself...
For outbound mail, do transport entries supersede the relayhost
parameter in main.cf?
The reason I ask is, currently, I relay all outbound mail through our
outsourced anti-spam service
* Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I know this is simple, but I never had to do it, so wanna check myself...
>
> For outbound mail, do transport entries supersede the relayhost parameter
> in main.cf?
Yes.
> The reason I ask is, currently, I relay al
On 8/8/2008 2:15 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
The reason I ask is, currently, I relay all outbound mail through our
outsourced anti-spam service (smtp.example1.com).
Why? Are you afraid you're sending spam?
Nope, just another layer of security - they provide the service as part
of the stand
* Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 8/8/2008 2:15 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>> The reason I ask is, currently, I relay all outbound mail through our
>>> outsourced anti-spam service (smtp.example1.com).
>
>> Why? Are you afraid you're sending spam?
>
> Nope, just another layer of securi
On 8/8/2008, Noel Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It looks as if you already consulted the documentation and just want
to confirm your interpretation of it. That's good, but say so next
time or you'll just be pointed back to the docs.
Heh... yeah, should have said so... but thanks for reading
IP address space allocated to it's customers.
In my main.cf I have this line:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
in my /etc/postfix/transport I have these two lines: (host/domain names
changed to protect the innocent)
foo.com smtp:[smtp.my-isp.net]:577
.foo.com
Dear List,
I am getting mail transport unavailable for one specific domain
'elsevier.com'. How should I debug? We have recently upgraded to
Postfix 2.5.5 running on AIX 5.3 OS.
See the logs below.
Sep 19 10:05:59 dnserns.isac.gov.in Message forwarded from dnserns:
pos
i want to create three processus smtp (transport). I know how to do it too.
Exemple :
smtp unix- - n - 100 smtp
-o myhostname=server1
way1 unix- - n - 100 smtp
-o myhostname=server2
way2 un
Test:
> Strange thing:
>
> I have a defined a few domains in /etc/postfix/transport:
>
> relaydomain.com smtp:[relaydomain.com]:65525
> .relaydomain.com smtp:[relaydomain.com]:65525
>
> Mail to relaydomain.com is relayed OK...
>
> But if have not specifie
> From: test
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Transport and relaying
>
> Strange thing:
>
> I have a defined a few domains in /etc/postfix/transport:
>
> relaydomain.com smtp:[relaydomain.com]:65525
> .relaydomain.com smtp:[relaydomain.com]:65525
&
On mx1.freebsd.org, we have a configuration that (vastly simplified)
looks something like this:
virtual_maps = hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/virtual
transport_maps = hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/transport
We have freebsd.org configured as a Postfix-style virtual domain
virtual:
freebsd.org
Good day
I have a newly built postfix server which is ignoring it's transport file and
is querying DNS for MX records instead.
I have googled the issue but only come up with "how to use transport file"
articles.
The /etc/postfix directory was copied from our Production relay and
ilters
uses normal transport resolution machinery without relying on
"content_filter" overrides.
> Amavis is limited in its ability to create different filtering
> policies for individual domains, so I wanted to be able to have
> amavisd run on one port for one domain and another
nstances is that routing of messages into content filters
> uses normal transport resolution machinery without relying on
> "content_filter" overrides.
FILTER_README needs updating. It is stuck in the past, before proper
multi-instance support was implemented
Wietse
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I have postfix-3.5.10 configured as a multi-instance along with
amavisd for spam filtering. Amavis is limited in its ability to create
different filtering policies for individual domains,
Unless a lot of functionality has been dropped since I last took a dive
in the Amavis docs
On 2022-01-27 23:14, Alex wrote:
btw, off-topic, but is anyone using fuglu in place of amavisd, which
seems kind of dead now?
so lets be offtopic, i do use fuglu in prequeue setup with postfix
more info in maillist or on fuglu https://gitlab.com/fumail/fuglu
I wanted to send a mail to a domain yesterday, that was using dead MX records
and one the one MX that was alive, was presenting an untrusted certificate (my
server uses verify by default). I added a transport map (or “route” as
mailcow-dockerized calls it) that points to the alive MX plus a TLS
Sean Hennessey:
> Is there a way to see the transport that queued mail is using?
>
> I just created a new transport and pointed a domain to it. The
> server also had mail for that domain queued up under the old
> transport.
>
> Is there any way I can find out what transp
Pedro David Marco:
> Hello everybody!!!
>
> I am trying to set smtp_fallback_relays per domain in the transport map file.
>
> According to the documentation this is possible:
> "In transport maps, specify "relay:nexthop..." as the right-hand side for
>
Thanks a lot Wietse for your quick answer...
but then... does this mean that i cannot use smtp_fallback_relays in
transport_map file??
Thanks again!
Pedro.
On Tue, 1/12/16, Wietse Venema wrote:
Subject: Re: smtp_fallback_relay in transport maps
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks a lot Wietse for your quick answer...
>
> but then... does this mean that i cannot use smtp_fallback_relays
> in transport_map file??
Perhaps you can explain what problem you are trying to solve.
I.e explain the problem instead of the solution, because
there may be a b
Ops!!
Thanks! I gladly do it, Wietse...
The problem is this:
i actually have a transport file like this:
DomainA.comsmtp:[10.10.10.1]:25
DomainB.comsmtp:[10.10.10.2]:25
DomainC.comsmtp:[10.10.10.3]:25
:
:
and so on...
what i need is to have alternative (fallback?) servers per
Pedro David Marco:
> Ops!!
>
> Thanks! I gladly do it, Wietse...
>
> The problem is this:
>
> i actually have a transport file like this:
>
> DomainA.comsmtp:[10.10.10.1]:25
> DomainB.comsmtp:[10.10.10.2]:25
> DomainC.comsmtp:[10.10.10.3]:25
Ho
The text under "TABLE SEARCH ORDER" describes that the search order
is first user+extension@domain, second user@domain, third domain, etc.
The text "Tables will be searched in the specified order until a
match is found" means that it first searches all tables for
user+extension@domain, second all
transport_maps are working great for setting
> the transport but I haven't been able to figure out how to go from
> there to specifying destination port per transport in master.cf.
You can override things with transport:domain:port and domain:port,
but there is nothing to override a dest
rewall) without hardcoding the nexthop.
> >
> > sender_dependent_default_transport_maps are working great for setting
> > the transport but I haven't been able to figure out how to go from
> > there to specifying destination port per transport in master.cf.
>
> You can override things with tr
> > Possible avenues: allow transport::port and :port,
> A domain-less next-hop destination (:port) would break the scheduler,
> which schedules deliveries by the next-hop destination. Note that
> the scheduler does not know about host:port syntax, nor does it
> know which deliv
ugh a transport to the webapp (a Django site), which would parse the
emails and do CRUD stuff with the database.
I can figure the details out myself, but I'm hoping to get advice on one
particular question: security.
I guess the safest thing would be to require logged-in users: presumably
I co
setup. I've not been able to
deduce the answer to the following from this and the other postfix
documentation.
QUESTION: what is the interaction between smtpd_proxy_filter and the various
transport settings?
SPECULATION: In the postfix-recv instance (that receives email from the
internet and
Hello,
Recently i upgraded to postfix 3.1 and i have an issue with the
transport maps.
i have a tcp loockup table in the transport maps and in some condition
i make a retry destination.
in postfix 2.11 if the loockup table gives retry then the message is
accepted from the client and
Am 07.11.2016 um 16:11 schrieb Jan Johansson:
Hello!
problably a silly question, but I cannot seem to find an example of obtaining
transport mapping via mySQL. Is that even possible?
(CentOS 7 with 2:2.10.1-6.el7)
It's actually quite simple:
1) Create a file with the MySQL credential
dbname = maildb
> hosts = unix:/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
> query = SELECT transport FROM domain WHERE domain = '%s'
>
>/etc/postfix/main.cf
>transport_maps =
>btree:/etc/postfix/transport_maps,
>proxy:mysql:/etc/p
p -q
> u...@example.com hash://map-path" it returns "smtp:[other.smtp.server]".
>
> However when I send a message through the server ... it is still
> delivered using the local transport.
>
> I have cranked up the debugging level for the host I am sending the
Lists Nethead:
>
> postfix-3.2.2
>
> Case in question:
>
> transport_maps = hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/transport,
> ldap:/usr/local/etc/postfix/ldap-transport.cf
>
> I had the (possibly erroneous) belief that Postfix searches the tables
> in the order given
rom the Postfix
server, this would allow us to more easily identify the edge cases.
We think we could do this using fallback transport but before we go too deep,
we'd like to see if anyone else has tried that and if it's a good idea or if
anyone has a better way to tackle that scenario.
e output when doing a postmap vq
>
> but is that correct for a transport_map
The transport(5) manpage says:
When the table is provided via other means such as NIS, LDAP or SQL,
the same lookups are done as for ordinary indexed files.
That text refers to the "TABLE SEARCH ORD
Wow lots of my post got cut off, this is what i wrote.
As you can see i am returning adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
But the mail log is saying transport map error
Hi All.
I would like the transport_maps to be driven from an ldap lookuop
but i am unsure of the format it should be
ab:
>
> Wow lots of my post got cut off, this is what i wrote.
>
> As you can see i am returning adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
> But the mail log is saying transport map error
>
>
>
> Hi All.
>
> I would like the transport_maps to be driven from a
um...
I have tried both
adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
and
relay:[smtp.foo.com]
as the the output of the ldap lookup and i just get
status=deferred (mail transport unavailable) error
Thanks
--
__
Adam Barnett
Systems Engineer
Double Negative
160
I have tried both
adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
and
relay:[smtp.foo.com]
as the the output of the ldap lookup and i just get
status=deferred (mail transport unavailable) error
any other error in logs? IS the smtp.foo.com reachable?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk
Hi,
That is the only error
Sep 19 14:59:54 foo postfix/error[103706]: 3C10828C082: to=,
relay=none, delay=0.01, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (mail
transport unavailable)
This is a MTA relay host
Thanks
--
__
Adam Barnett
Systems Engineer
Double
Adam Barnett:
> Hi,
>
> That is the only error
>
> Sep 19 14:59:54 foo postfix/error[103706]: 3C10828C082: to=,
> relay=none, delay=0.01, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (mail
> transport unavailable)
>
There is more than this.
Wietse
There was this error as well
Sep 19 14:59:47 foo postfix/qmgr[103420]: warning: connect to transport
private/f...@bar.comrelay: No such file or directory
--
__
Adam Barnett
Systems Engineer
Double Negative
160 Great Portland Street,W1W 5QA
T: 020-7268-5000
Adam Barnett:
> There was this error as well
>
> Sep 19 14:59:47 foo postfix/qmgr[103420]: warning: connect to transport
> private/f...@bar.comrelay: No such file or directory
>
Right. That was for the malformed transport result with an email
address at the beginning.
6:51:54 natter postfix/qmgr[111506]: warning: transport relay failure
-- see a previous warning/fatal/panic logfile record for the problem description
Sep 19 16:51:54 natter postfix/master[84677]: warning: process
/usr/lib/postfix/sbin/smtp pid 111518 exit status 1
Sep 19 16:51:54 natter postfix/master[8
On 19 Sep 2019, at 11:54, Adam Barnett wrote:
When i changed the LDAP response to
server_host = ldap://zimbraldap:389
server_port = 389
search_base =
query_filter =
(&(|(zimbraMailDeliveryAddress=%s)(zimbraMailAlias=%s))(zimbraMailStatus=enabled))
result_attribute = mail,zimbraMailAlias
See
ultiples of either,) see the documentation of "expansion_limit" in
> the same man page. If they all contain both attributes, pick one.
Yes, the LDAP table result for transport resolution must be "single-valued",
and a comma-separated list is unlikely to work. That said,
mple.com is directed to internal servers.
What should I to to exempt $mydestination from being looked up in
transport_maps?
seems I found it:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Mydestination-and-transport-maps-td85665.html
so for every subdomain of .example.com, override must be do
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> Seems I found it:
>
> http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Mydestination-and-transport-maps-td85665.html
>
> so for every subdomain of .example.com, override must be done in
> transport_maps:
>
&g
I’m trying to get a better understanding of the relationship between relay and
transport.
In the standard config on an email gateway in
(http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#firewall) the
proposed config has relay_domains set for example.com and transport_maps set to
a
ip addresses is working well for all
but one major transport.
This one majortransport is complaining about too many connections even
with:
majortransport_destination_concurrency_limit = 4
I am configuring majortransport to use a single ip address in master.cf to
reduce the number of connections
t to our new mail server via SMTP. It appears
outlook
> is complaining about the number of connections for email coming from the
> source_server_ip -- only one ip address.
I reduced the number of processes available to the outlook transport to 12
in master.cf. This eliminated the "max
Hi,
I'm still working on trying to get my multi-instance postfix
installation working with amavis.
I'd like to try and do this without using content_filter but I'm
having a problem.
Mail appears to be completely ignoring the amavisd proxy despite
configuring default_transport to use 10025.
# ne
In effort to relay by default, except for specific domains, I have
configured a mysql transport table as follows:
++---+
| tkey | transport
On 12.10.23 00:56, wesley--- via Postfix-users wrote:
How can I setup username based transport?
for incoming messages, such as use...@foo.com will be delivered to host a.
use...@foo.com will be delivered to host b.
transport_maps support username@domain notation:
http://www.postfix.org
/postfix/virtual and
/etc/postfix/transport on postfix1 to accomplish this:
Situation: an email is received by postfix1, destined for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , sales is a group list and the members are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
erick lives in postfix2 while tom lives in sendmail1.
postfix1
ure postfix can only use the number of transport daemons
I specify for it... for example if I have 10 smtp client daemons I
wanted the queue manager to know I only have 10 smtp daemons and should
organize deliveries knowing that can only use 10 (for avoiding unknown
mail transport errors...), o
>
> Yes, adjust the maxproc column in master.cf to adjust the total number of
> daemons a particular transport can spawn. If the maxproc column is "-",
> then default_process_limit is used.
Ok but this couldn't cause that if for example you have 20 messages to be
red
Egoitz Aurrekoetxea wrote:
Yes, adjust the maxproc column in master.cf <http://master.cf> to
adjust the total number of daemons a particular transport can spawn.
If the maxproc column is "-", then default_process_limit is used.
Ok but this couldn't cause th
Noel Jones:
> Egoitz Aurrekoetxea wrote:
> > Yes, adjust the maxproc column in master.cf <http://master.cf> to
> > adjust the total number of daemons a particular transport can spawn.
> > If the maxproc column is "-", then default_process_lim
been talking about smtp client threads of postfix... but imagine now
(for understanding better...) amavis for example... you launch two amavis
processes as you specified in amavisd.conf. So if you set the proccess_limit
for amavis to 2 in master.cf you shouldn't never have a transport time
ttp://master.cf> you
shouldn't never have a transport timeout or any kind of error for
waiting messages in active queue till amavis has a free proccess for
accepting the message? the only thing could happen is that the active
queue reaches the limit of messages in this queue and later a
no errors should happen or other issues and postfix knows it only has X
proccess for a transport and that can't do more connections than that for
that transport. I haven't get almost problems because of this... but wanted
to ensure how this works.
Thanks a lot mates!!!
2008/12/2 Noel Jon
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:05:12AM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
> I suggest update transport documentation changing '*' to last lookup order.
>
> Beacause users can to deduct erroneously that '*' is a wildcard, and
> isn't. '*' is choosed cara
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:05:12AM -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
>
> > I suggest update transport documentation changing '*' to last lookup order.
> >
> > Beacause users can to deduct erroneously that '*' is a wildcard, and
>
t switch
the domains over. I would like to use my Postfix server to filter /
rewrite incoming addresses and then relay them on to Google, with my
server being the MX server for the domain and using a smtp "transport"
entry to direct the messages to the right place.
Long Syn
Henri Chevreton:
> Feb 13 14:25:37 alty postfix/master[3972]: warning: process
> /usr/lib/postfix/local pid 19045 killed by signal 6
That is your problem.
Wietse
We have a setup where we have a bunch of mail we need to send to a
domain that tends to back up our mail server. I put a transport rule
in to send all mail to that domain to a relay to get it out of our
main mail queue and let it deal with it and not disrupt the rest of
the outgoing mail.
So far
Dear All,
is it possible to deliver all emails from a certain domain to 2 or 3 server ?
eg.
server 1 with ip 10.100.200.2 accept domain abc.com
server 2 with ip 10.100.200.3 accept domain abc.com
both of server have exactly configuration and user/mailbox replication.
We need do this since serve
ly the nexthop and
not the transport.
> I basically have two categories of email, and i
> want different rate controls for each of these categories. Is there a
> possible way to achieve this ?
Use FILTER if you are sure that all recipients are deliverable via
a single transport.
--
you are sure that all recipients are deliverable via
> a single transport.
>
>
> --
>Viktor.
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
>
> To unsubscribe from the postfix
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 02:01:43AM +0600, Harsh Jain wrote:
> Hey Victor,
> I am not sure I understand. I have gone through postfix filters but its
> still not clear how to achieve this. Are you implying using header_checks ?
Whatever lets you distinguish one type of message from another. It
Hey victor,
My mails are delivered locally using sendmail. Will this work in this
case ?
regards,
harsh
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Victor Duchovni <
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 02:01:43AM +0600, Harsh Jain wrote:
>
> > Hey Victor,
> > I am n
I just upgraded to postfix 2.5.5 from 2.3. Now, it seems my previously
working transport maps are ignored as are hosts that are MX'ed to the
machine running postfix. In both cases, email are rejected with "Relay
access denied."
I note in the attached 'postconf -d' o
Am 21.03.2010 00:16, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 19.03.2010 12:42, schrieb Wietse Venema:
>> Robert Schetterer:
>>> Am 19.03.2010 11:41, schrieb Wietse Venema:
>>>> Robert Schetterer:
>>>>> Hi @ll,
>>>>> is there a way to ove
relayed to [a.b.c.d]
messages for aaa.xxx.com and bbb.yyy.com are tried to be delivered
directly to the MX of aaa.xxx.com and bbb.yyy.com.
Workaround:
With a transport map, I force these subdomains to be routed to [a.b.c.d]:
aaa.xxx.comrelay:[a.b.c.d]
bbb.yyy.comrelay:[a.b.c.d]
Note: using
er directly and also to continue processing
mail for lists.example.org locally and passing it to mailman. I think I can
do this with transport maps? Will transit maps override the relayhost
settings when appropriate? I have the O'Reilly Postfix book, but wasn't
able to determine thi
I had posted some of this before but since I wasn't a valid subscriber
I was "silently" ignored.. mybad.. :-)
---
I have an internal relay that I am replacing (sendmail with postfix)
I have followed :
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#firewall
and ha
:
main.cf -
relayhost = mail.myprovider.com
transport_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/transport
--
-- transport -
/^...@pelikan
Hi there,
If Postfix server gets a mail message with multiple TO: address (i.e.,
multiple recipients), does Postfix send one message to each address? If
so, at what stage does this happen? The postfix log seems to indicate
that.
For my Postfix, I customized my transport in postfix like this
On 12/1/2010 12:45 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> I am trying to send via majordomo but yet
> I do see
>
> Dec 1 10:35:28 doctor doctor[31]: postfix/error[22238]: 371E112CFAB3:
> to=, relay=none, delay=157827, delays=157783/43/0/0.21, dsn=4.3.0,
> status=deferred (unknown ma
relay=none, delay=157827, delays=157783/43/0/0.21, dsn=4.3.0,
> > status=deferred (unknown mail transport error)
> >
> > This is the first time I have seen this.
> >
> > What can done to rectify?
> >
>
>
> What's with the domain-less to= ?
The Doctor:
> I am trying to send via majordomo but yet
> I do see
>
> Dec 1 10:35:28 doctor doctor[31]: postfix/error[22238]: 371E112CFAB3:
> to=, relay=none, delay=157827, delays=157783/43/0/0.21, dsn=4.3.0,
> status=deferred (unknown mail transport error)
>
> This
Hi:
I'm running Postfix 2.3.3 for a domain 'mydomain.com' with some users
hosted locally (with Cyrus IMAP) and some others are hosted by a MS
Exchange server.
I configured a transport map for all users that need to be relayed to
the MS exchange like this:
exchangeus...@myd
On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Sufian Hameed wrote:
> Dec 9 14:18:18 esprimo postfix/qmgr[8828]: warning: transport smtp failure
> -- see a previous warning/fatal/panic logfile record for the problem
> description
what does this log entry say ?
Sufian Hameed:
> Dec 9 14:15:32 esprimo postfix/master[8826]: warning: process
> /usr/libexec/postfix/smtp pid 9235 killed by signal 11
>
> what seems to be the problems ?
You MUST respect the instructions in the mailing list welcome message.
Wietse
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.p
301 - 400 of 1183 matches
Mail list logo
