August 7, 2008 
< | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | >
August 7, 2008 [00:00:43] <bondoer> hehe 1000 emails was even too high for proxy, or was it just that mysql queyr cache as you mentioned?[00:08:06] *** felix-da-catz is now known as felix-da-catz_zz[00:20:02] <bondoer> can i specify virtual mailboxes in this way[00:20:02] <bondoer> virtual_mailbox_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/vmailboxes[00:20:19] <bondoer> , proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mymailboxes[00:20:20] <bondoer> ?[00:20:27] <lunaphyte> sure[00:20:38] <bondoer> so if the first wont match it will continue?[00:20:55] <bondoer> cause i was looking into doc and didnt found this sentence so i want to make sure :)[00:21:31] <lunaphyte> folks who have extremely high server loads will often use sql for storage and management, but dump their maps to flat files for postfix to actually use.[00:22:12] <bondoer> hmm to flat files?[00:22:56] <lunaphyte> tough to beat flat files for speed.[00:24:45] *** F6F has joined #postfix[00:24:57] <Trengo> .db files[00:24:58] <bondoer> interesing will test it later[00:25:05] <Trengo> i did that with sendmail[00:25:20] <Trengo> sendmail doesnt talk to mysql[00:25:30] <lunaphyte> really? not at all?[00:25:30] <bondoer> btw postfix is great, right after i reload configuration vwith new virtual maps(hash) it delivered the rest of pending mesages in mather of second :)[00:25:36] <Trengo> nope[00:25:39] <lunaphyte> wow[00:25:57] <Trengo> so i dump domains and virtusers to files and restart sendmail[00:25:58] <lunaphyte> i've never been a huge fan of sendmail, but i wouldn't have guess that.[00:26:02] <lunaphyte> *guesed.[00:26:08] <Trengo> it will talk to ldap, but...[00:26:25] <Trengo> actually this is even better performance[00:26:39] <Trengo> like you said :)[00:27:06] <Trengo> oh btw going to do the same with bind-dlz[00:27:14] <Trengo> dump mysql to db files[00:29:41] <lunaphyte> if you're dumping to files, you don't really need bind-dlz.[00:29:50] <Trengo> sure i do[00:30:12] <Trengo> dlz db files[00:31:33] <bondoer> hmm, is it normal that i rceive temporary lookup filures in combination with hash?[00:32:33] <bondoer> koay i think 1000 emails per 100 sessions, is too much :)[00:36:54] *** zhaozhou has joined #postfix[00:37:20] <zhaozhou> smtpd_client_restrictions = reject; should'nt this reject everything?[00:42:02] <bondoer> 1000msg/minute :/ thats not too much[00:43:31] *** Jense has quit IRC[00:44:18] *** pickcoder has quit IRC[00:51:59] *** mailqu has quit IRC[00:54:53] *** neoeinstein has quit IRC[00:58:16] *** Malawar has joined #postfix[00:58:39] <Malawar> ok, I'm a total noob when it comes to postfix.. had everything running fine (i thought), installed ISPConfig on my server, and now it appears to not work[00:58:52] <Malawar> telnetting to port 25 connects, but I get no banner and it's not responding to EHLO[00:59:14] <zhaozhou> Malawar, logs?[00:59:17] <Malawar> I just don't know where to start looking to debug this :/[00:59:25] <Malawar> hm[00:59:46] <Malawar> i suppose i should look through the logs :P[00:59:53] <Malawar> except it doesn't seem to put them in /var/log anymore[01:00:05] <zhaozhou> mine is in /var/log/mail*[01:00:07] <zhaozhou> (:[01:00:40] <Malawar> yeah, i had a bunch of mail.* files in my log dir that I moved out so I could get fresh logs, but it hasn't recreated them[01:01:34] <Malawar> so either it needs the files there to write to them, which seems stupid.. or it's not logging anymore :/[01:01:53] *** war9407 has quit IRC[01:02:08] <zhaozhou> Malawar, Yeah, it seems stupid to me aswell, but there is no harm in trying. touch em and restart postfix[01:03:09] <Malawar> seems to be going into my syslog now, actually.[01:03:30] <Malawar> ah, getting somewhere now[01:03:46] <Malawar> fatal: dictionary mail_dict: macro processing error :/[01:04:57] <zhaozhou> And that was how much I could help ya. :-)[01:05:11] <Malawar> it's all I needed, it seems[01:05:32] <Malawar> whenever I ask a question on IRC i always seem to figure things out, even if nobody gives me anything helpful :P[01:05:35] <Malawar> it's magic.[01:06:34] <Malawar> mm, fixed[01:06:41] <zhaozhou> Yeah, same here. Although, this one I cant get my head around. Googling and googling...[01:06:46] <Malawar> ISPConfig made some retarded changes to my main.cf[01:07:53] <zhaozhou> backups, backups, backups... and the diff-command.[01:08:17] <Malawar> well, it changed a ton of stuff, just a few lines were buggy :/[01:08:27] <Malawar> it tried to comment out some stuff mid-line..[01:08:31] <Malawar> had stuff like $#virtualhost[01:09:35] *** F6F has quit IRC[01:10:12] *** Jarrod has joined #postfix[01:11:06] <zhaozhou> I'm off to watch futurama, rest my head for awhile. :-) perhaps my failsearching-skill gets better by it. BBL.[01:11:46] <Jarrod> Hi, I'm getting the error message: [warn] The Alias directive in /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/squirrelmail at line 1 will probably never match because it overlaps an earlier alias[01:13:04] <lunaphyte> Jarrod: #apache[01:13:43] *** dragonheart has quit IRC[01:14:28] *** dragonheart has joined #postfix[01:14:58] *** linkslice has quit IRC[01:19:20] *** smellynoser has joined #postfix[01:19:46] <smellynoser> Hey - How do I make postfix resend faster? A few servers I use employ grey listing, and I want the initial message to get there faster[01:22:17] <shasta> smellynoser, http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#minimal_backoff_time[01:22:24] *** slackjr has joined #postfix[01:25:07] <smellynoser> Thankyou very much :)[01:25:09] *** smellynoser has quit IRC[01:26:29] <lunaphyte> also see queue_run_delay[01:26:37] <lunaphyte> oh, oh well.[01:36:10] <lunaphyte> anyone have an extra donkey or burro?[01:39:45] *** Motoko-chan has quit IRC[01:46:14] *** amrit|wrk is now known as amrit|bbl[01:53:24] *** growltiger has joined #postfix[01:55:30] *** slackjr has quit IRC[02:09:28] *** Zblakany has quit IRC[02:28:46] *** m0f0x has joined #postfix[02:29:48] <bondoer> if i want to disable anvil could i do it simply by commenting out the anvil line in master.cf?? or do i ahve to do more for no message limitation[02:29:50] *** ming_zym has joined #postfix[02:30:22] <sahil> let's back up -- why are you disabling anvil?[02:30:52] <bondoer> cause i want to test the maimum throughput of my postfix, and i think that anvil started to block my test client which hammer the postfix[02:31:20] <sahil> then you needn't disable anvil; just disable rate smtp(d) rate controls in your main.cf.[02:32:58] <bondoer> do you know which exactly?[02:33:34] <sahil> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions[02:33:38] <bondoer> # postconf |grep rate_[02:33:38] <bondoer> anvil_rate_time_unit = 60s[02:33:38] <bondoer> smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit = 0[02:33:38] <bondoer> smtpd_client_message_rate_limit = 0[02:33:38] <bondoer> smtpd_client_new_tls_session_rate_limit = 0[02:33:41] <bondoer> smtpd_client_recipient_rate_limit = 0[02:33:43] <bondoer> these one?[02:34:07] <sahil> just do this:[02:34:08] <sahil> smtpd_client_event_limit_exceptions = static:all[02:34:09] <bondoer> ahh thx :)[02:34:10] <sahil> and postfix reload[02:35:04] *** ming_zym has quit IRC[02:35:58] <bondoer> great, i got again full speed :), thx alot[02:37:30] <sahil> np.[02:37:36] <sahil> be careful. :)[02:37:39] *** PhilKC_ has joined #Postfix[02:38:59] *** GoGi has quit IRC[02:39:10] <zhaozhou> Okay, back to problemsolving... smtpd_client_restrictions = reject; should this not reject everything?[02:39:14] <zhaozhou> From even connecting?[02:40:18] <zhaozhou> Even foreign hosts can relay everything they want everywhere they want...[02:40:45] *** ming_zym has joined #postfix[02:41:14] *** ming_zym has quit IRC[02:41:25] *** ming_zym1 has joined #postfix[02:42:10] *** ming_zym has joined #postfix[02:46:50] *** PhilKC has quit IRC[02:57:05] *** olinux has quit IRC[03:10:17] *** pirho has quit IRC[03:16:42] *** Jarrod has quit IRC[03:18:00] *** Jarrod has joined #postfix[03:27:34] <hparker> !basic[03:27:35] <knoba> hparker: "basic" : http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html : a good starting place for Postfix beginners, many common questions are answered here.[03:27:40] <hparker> zhaozhou: ^^^^^^^^[03:29:01] <zhaozhou> My mistake, i thought it would say no right at connecting, but it did'nt complain until postfix knew from/to variables[03:31:32] <lunaphyte> !smtpd_delay_reject[03:31:33] <knoba> lunaphyte: "smtpd_delay_reject" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: Wait until the RCPT TO command before evaluating $smtpd_client_restrictions, $smtpd_helo_restrictions and $smtpd_sender_restrictions.[03:35:17] <zhaozhou> Ooh, thanks! Made stuff easier by the loads.[03:35:57] <lunaphyte> be aware that not waiting can cause poor software to harass your mta.[03:36:26] <zhaozhou> It's however a private mailserver, will be used by me and me only. So that is not a problem.[03:36:57] <lunaphyte> did you write the software that will submit messages to it? ;)[03:37:25] <zhaozhou> Nah, but netcat wont fail. :-)[03:37:59] <lunaphyte> you're probably right about that.[03:38:31] *** neoeinstein has joined #postfix[03:43:14] *** Jarrod has quit IRC[03:50:37] *** ming_zym1 has quit IRC[04:00:05] *** mavrick61 has quit IRC[04:01:13] *** mavrick61 has joined #postfix[04:01:22] <magyar> !smtpd_data_restrictions[04:01:22] <knoba> magyar: "smtpd_data_restrictions" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: Optional access restrictions that the Postfix SMTP server applies in the context of the SMTP DATA command. See smtpd(5) for an overview of access restriction features.[04:12:11] *** xpoint has quit IRC[04:44:39] *** pickcoder has joined #postfix[04:51:25] *** githogori has quit IRC[04:57:12] *** tshine has joined #postfix[05:03:14] *** evader has joined #postfix[05:04:16] <evader> Hi, I have a lot of mail in my mail queues that isn't delivered as the recipient domain doesn't have a valid MX record. Can I make postfix reject the mail sooner (instead of taking ages/days to timeout) if the recipient domain is invalid?[05:05:11] <evader> reject_unknown_recipient_domain[05:05:16] <evader> that's the correct functiom, right?[05:06:34] <pickcoder> evader: not having an MX wouldn't stop it[05:06:42] <pickcoder> as long as the domain resolved[05:07:15] <pickcoder> reject_non_fqdn_recipient[05:07:31] *** e-head_ has joined #postfix[05:08:31] <evader> true, it defaults to A record[05:08:56] <pickcoder> you should also reject_non_fqdn_sender[05:09:21] <evader> So, are these for client restrictions or recipient[05:09:26] <evader> i always forget teh distinction in postfix[05:09:58] <evader> im only doing smtpd_client_restrictions and i have the unknown_recip_domain bit[05:10:12] <pickcoder> smtpd_recipient_restrictions[05:10:27] <evader> what's the dif between recip. and client restrictions?[05:10:40] <evader> or where is a doco that explains it please?[05:10:55] <pickcoder> you can put them all under recipient[05:11:27] <evader> but, im not sure of the difference between the different restriction groups[05:11:30] <evader> client/sender/recip[05:11:38] <evader> can u point me in the right direction?[05:11:40] <pickcoder> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_recipient_restrictions[05:12:12] <evader> thanks[05:12:24] <pickcoder> the only thing you shouldn't put there is stuff under smtpd_data_restrictions[05:17:54] *** evader has quit IRC[05:21:15] *** e-head has quit IRC[05:22:02] *** cilly has quit IRC[05:39:16] *** Haris has quit IRC[05:39:56] *** Haris__ has joined #postfix[05:40:05] *** Haris__ is now known as Haris[05:44:35] *** goldfisc1li has joined #postfix[05:54:20] *** saurabhb has joined #postfix[06:00:37] *** goldfischli has quit IRC[06:03:17] *** Motoko-chan has joined #postfix[06:19:01] *** githogori has joined #postfix[06:27:37] *** pickcoder has quit IRC[06:28:31] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[06:32:26] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[06:32:58] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[06:33:38] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[06:35:09] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[06:35:48] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[06:37:13] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[06:37:44] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[06:47:02] *** Jarrod has joined #postfix[06:58:41] *** hparker has quit IRC[07:13:44] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:13:46] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:18:41] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:19:07] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:23:13] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:24:29] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:25:31] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:25:36] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:26:59] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:28:12] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:28:40] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:28:51] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:29:45] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:29:54] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:30:48] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:30:56] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:31:49] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:33:51] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:34:07] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:35:42] *** m0f0x has quit IRC[07:36:39] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[07:37:18] *** Jarrod has quit IRC[07:37:24] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[07:37:53] *** m0f0x has joined #postfix[07:41:01] *** madrescher has joined #postfix[07:48:07] *** jcm has joined #postfix[07:49:52] *** Lap_64 has joined #postfix[07:57:21] *** Zeit|awy_ has joined #postfix[08:04:22] *** Zeit|awy has quit IRC[08:04:30] *** amrit|bbl is now known as amrit[08:06:19] *** m1n3s6 has joined #postfix[08:07:54] *** hever has joined #postfix[08:13:34] *** jcm has quit IRC[08:14:29] *** syneus has joined #postfix[08:18:26] *** carl- has joined #postfix[08:20:17] *** Lap_64 has quit IRC[08:26:13] *** rootsvr has joined #postfix[08:27:28] *** ming_zym has quit IRC[08:28:44] *** sophokles has joined #postfix[08:39:13] *** ming_zym has joined #postfix[08:39:30] *** Filbert has joined #postfix[08:48:11] *** phnord has joined #postfix[08:55:59] *** jeffspeff has joined #postfix[08:57:53] *** madrescher has quit IRC[09:06:53] *** rootsvr has quit IRC[09:07:47] *** g0rd0n_ has joined #postfix[09:15:03] *** Motoko-chan has quit IRC[09:16:06] *** j_s has joined #postfix[09:22:23] *** Haris1 has joined #postfix[09:24:52] *** madrescher has joined #postfix[09:26:21] *** Gaarv has joined #postfix[09:27:53] *** Pazzo has joined #postfix[09:31:13] *** arooni has joined #postfix[09:31:14] <arooni> i have 1250 (opt-in) email addresses in a mysql database. i need to send them one email (and possibly more in the future)... what's the best way of going about this?[09:32:40] <sep> postfix just deliver the mails. use some of the many mailinglist softwarer out there[09:33:48] *** syneus has left #postfix[09:37:14] *** EasilyOdd has joined #postfix[09:43:48] *** xnixan has quit IRC[09:49:06] *** brancaleone has joined #postfix[09:54:27] <Gaarv> hello[09:55:21] *** riz_ has joined #postfix[09:56:06] <Gaarv> Im migrating from sendmail, I have a "mail loops back to myself issue" when sending mails to my own domain. I knew how to fix this on sendmail, any clue fro doing this in postfix ? I tried playing with mydestination and myhostname but no luck :/[09:56:23] *** madrescher has quit IRC[09:56:44] <riz_> Morning. Yesterday I modified the order of some directive in my main.cf and now I get this error: http://pastebin.com/m520b14bd[09:57:50] *** war9407 has joined #postfix[09:58:12] <riz_> It's related to content_filter, so I try to change the position of "content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024" but nothing change.[10:02:10] <f3ew> !loopback[10:02:10] <knoba> f3ew: "loopback" : 'Mail loops back to myself' means that your Postfix wanted to send out the mail to the internet but then discovered that the DNS says your mail server should be responsible. Most likely you forgot to list your domain in mydestination or virtual_(alias|mailbox)_domains[10:02:17] <f3ew> @ Gaarv[10:03:42] <Gaarv> thanks f3ew, guess Im on the right track, I will keep trying changing destinations or put a virtual[10:04:11] <Gaarv> riz_: my content filter syntax is like this : content_filter = pmx:127.0.0.1:10025[10:04:16] <Gaarv> no brackets it seems[10:04:26] <Gaarv> no sure its matters...[10:04:45] <f3ew> it does[10:04:58] <riz_> Gaarv no, it's not revelant. In another server I use the bracket content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024[10:05:19] <f3ew> Gaarv, you don't have the domain listed in mydestination[10:05:20] <riz_> Gaarv and works greats. It something related to the order of rule.[10:05:25] <f3ew> Check with postconf -n[10:06:36] *** amrit is now known as amrit|zzz[10:08:53] <riz_> ah I've found it (maybe) it the machine where works the content_filter is not releted to smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ... In this machine, with postconf -n I see it belong to smtpd_recipient_restrictions =[10:12:09] <riz_> that's it. Now I need to investigate on "warning: unknown smtpd restriction: "receive_override_options""[10:14:26] *** cilly has joined #postfix[10:16:10] <Gaarv> f3ew: looks like I made it, didnt understand you could explicitly list the domains in destination... thanks :)[10:18:26] *** DrChandra has joined #postfix[10:20:46] *** madrescher has joined #postfix[10:21:21] <f3ew> riz_ add whitespace before receive_override_options[10:22:28] <riz_> f3ew I solved moved "receive_override_options = no_address_mappings" after "content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024"[10:27:38] *** brancaleone has quit IRC[10:29:25] *** wayland has joined #postfix[10:30:04] <wayland> hi, i have problem with my mail server, i recently updated postfix and now i keep getting this error: warning: unexpected attribute log_protocol_name from smtp socket (expecting: log_client_port)[10:31:33] *** internat1 is now known as INternat[10:31:42] *** INternat is now known as Internat[10:33:42] *** alienbrain has joined #postfix[10:35:26] *** g0rd0n_ has quit IRC[10:41:29] <sysmonk> wayland: have you restarted postfix?[10:41:32] <sysmonk> not reload, but restart[10:47:00] *** brancaleone has joined #postfix[10:48:51] <wayland> sysmonk, doh, just did that....[10:48:55] * wayland feels quite stupid[10:55:27] * sysmonk feels smart![10:55:27] <sysmonk> ;P[10:58:02] *** robtone_ has quit IRC[10:58:06] *** robtone_ has joined #postfix[11:05:50] *** F6F has joined #postfix[11:09:53] *** Nathariel has joined #postfix[11:12:55] *** mark-use has joined #postfix[11:15:21] <Flobbie> I just installed postfix and want to connect to :25. But postfix does not answer. I changed the hostname to mail.mydomain.de and reloaded postfix. Why does postfix do not answer? Is there anything I have to change at the beginning?[11:16:03] <Landon> you might want to do `netstat -al` and see if anything is listening on :25[11:16:44] <Landon> will show up as :smtp likely[11:17:54] <Flobbie> unix 2 [ ACC ] STREAM LISTENING 2966425089 private/smtp. in cat /etc/services | grep 25 I find smtp 25/tcp mail[11:19:20] *** xnixan has joined #postfix[11:20:39] <Flobbie> tcp 0 0 *:smtp *:* LISTEN[11:21:10] <Landon> ok, can you do telnet localhost 25 on that machine?[11:21:19] <Landon> or does postfix not respond to that either[11:21:56] *** wayland has quit IRC[11:23:07] <Flobbie> I tried that:[11:23:08] <Flobbie> Trying 127.0.0.1...[11:23:08] <Flobbie> Connected to localhost.localdomain.[11:23:08] <Flobbie> Escape character is '^]'.[11:23:08] <Flobbie> ^][11:23:45] <Flobbie> but postfix does not print his banner[11:23:57] * Landon has no clue now[11:24:22] <Landon> anything in the postfix logs when you try to connect?[11:25:44] <Flobbie> Aug 7 11:25:35 flobbie postfix/master[27803]: terminating on signal 15[11:25:44] <Flobbie> Aug 7 11:25:35 flobbie postfix/master[30402]: daemon started -- version 2.3.8, configuration /etc/postfix[11:30:32] *** ninext has joined #postfix[11:34:09] <ninext> Hallo people!! Can you help me for this problem on message queue?? ... when I receive a message it is in queue for a long time (sometimes it is there forever). I have also installed mailscanner and clamav. Is there somethink to check o setup?[11:34:22] <Landon> Flobbie: that's just a normal service restart[11:35:01] <Flobbie> Landon: I know, but that is all, what is in the mail.log[11:35:01] *** Jense has joined #postfix[11:35:37] <Landon> hmm[11:40:09] *** ploploop has joined #postfix[11:45:53] *** saturn_ has joined #postfix[11:48:56] <saturn_> hi! can anybody give me a link to postfix configuration manual (in russian if aviliable)?[11:49:44] <Flobbie> Landon: Don't know why it works now. Just reinstalled it.[11:49:51] <Landon> heh[11:50:05] <ninext> no help for me???[11:50:36] <Flobbie> saturn_: I can only give you one in english. http://workaround.org/articles/ispmail-etch/index.html.en -> This is a really easy one. I followed it once. It is working great.[11:50:52] *** brancaleone has quit IRC[11:51:15] <Nathariel> saturn_ http://www.postfix.ru/ ?[11:51:28] <saturn_> thanks[11:51:29] <sysmonk> wee, there's postfix.ru ?[11:51:42] <saturn_> :)[11:51:43] <sysmonk> wow, didn't know that :)[11:52:36] *** PhilKC_ has quit IRC[11:54:04] <Nathariel> me either ;) Just found it out[11:56:14] *** bhagat has joined #postfix[11:56:30] <sysmonk> you're both russian ?[11:57:43] <Nathariel> nah, i am bulgarian but that shouldnt't bother you :)[11:58:53] <Flobbie> I found my error: What is wrong with that:[11:58:53] <Flobbie> virtual_mailbox_base = /home/vmail/[11:58:53] <Flobbie> virtual_mailbox_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual[11:58:53] <Flobbie> virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual_alias[11:58:54] <Flobbie> virtual_mailbox_domains = /etc/postfix/vmailvirtual_domains[11:59:03] *** Internat has quit IRC[11:59:14] *** Internat has joined #postfix[12:02:00] <Flobbie> found an error in mail.err. postix searches for virtual_alias.db. Why he searches for db?[12:05:38] <Nathariel> Flobbie -> man virtual[12:05:47] *** saturn_ has left #postfix[12:09:03] *** hever has quit IRC[12:09:53] *** john_ has joined #postfix[12:12:07] *** john_ is now known as jmcw[12:13:05] <f3ew> Flobbie you told it to[12:13:43] *** jmcw has quit IRC[12:14:43] *** ninext has quit IRC[12:16:39] <jduggan> ok guys, im trying to figure out a scenario where I can first check a domain in a database, if the domain exists, i want to header check, based on if a header exists, rewrite the rcpt to address for that domain, but i cant figure out a decent method[12:17:16] <jduggan> i've pondered doing a header_check with a mysql map and a redirect with some regexp/concat kungfu, but i think that'll be expensive in resources[12:17:27] <jduggan> does anyone know of a decent way to do it, which can scale[12:22:15] <f3ew> jduggan, content_filter[12:25:19] *** Guest66465 has joined #postfix[12:26:01] <jduggan> are there any content_filters out there which already do what i want it to do[12:26:08] <jduggan> sounds like i'll probably have to write it myself[12:26:29] <Guest66465> is there a way to deny sending emails to certain email address for all account on my mail server?[12:26:37] *** Guest66465 is now known as drazen[12:26:53] *** drazen is now known as demian777[12:29:14] <f3ew> check_recipient_access[12:29:20] *** UQlev has joined #postfix[12:38:48] *** cpm has joined #postfix[12:41:19] <Flobbie> why does my postfix doesn't answer to: MAIL FROM:<info at flobbie dot de>[12:41:53] <cpm> check your logs[12:42:08] <Flobbie> yes, I forgot..[12:47:41] *** mark-use has quit IRC[12:48:15] *** j_s has quit IRC[12:48:16] <Flobbie> does my virtual_alias_maps can return an empty result? Or does I have to return a result? Aug 7 12:45:47 flobbie postfix/trivial-rewrite[27761]: fatal: mysql:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual_alias.cf(0,lock|fold_fix): table lookup problem[12:49:53] <Flobbie> Or is my error is something else?[12:50:08] <jduggan> id say something else[12:50:37] <jduggan> if its not a production db server, turn on sql logging, see what statement it runs, then figure out whats wrong[12:50:55] <jduggan> although it should be pretty simple from your virtual_alias.cf[12:51:03] <jduggan> run the statement in mysql prompt[12:51:16] *** kk_CHN has joined #postfix[12:52:08] <Flobbie> postmap -q 'info at flobbie dot de' mysql:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual_alias.cf -> I tried that. No result is correct. postmap -q 'help at flobbie dot de' mysql:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual_alias.cf -> result: info at flobbie dot de is correct[12:58:12] *** demian777 has quit IRC[12:58:44] *** bhagat has quit IRC[13:01:46] *** UQlev has quit IRC[13:08:33] *** mark-use has joined #postfix[13:10:09] <Flobbie> what does virtual_mailbox_domains give as where_field? the domain? Because I am still getting the error:[13:10:10] <Flobbie> Aug 7 13:08:10 flobbie postfix/trivial-rewrite[24005]: fatal: mysql:/etc/postfix/vmail/virtual_domains.cf(0,lock|fold_fix): table lookup problem. But he checks the domain[13:10:30] *** j_s has joined #postfix[13:10:36] <f3ew> what's the warning before that?[13:12:07] <Flobbie> which warning? in my mail.err are only those warnings.[13:12:50] <Flobbie> in my mail.log I find this:[13:12:50] <Flobbie> Aug 7 13:11:15 flobbie postfix/smtpd[28117]: warning: premature end-of-input on private/rewrite socket while reading input attribute name[13:17:16] <Flobbie> I test it with telnet, but he did not answer to MAIL FROM:<info at flobbie dot de>[13:19:00] *** Jax has joined #postfix[13:21:32] *** m1n3s6 has quit IRC[13:27:14] <Haris1> In a postfix + mysql setup[13:27:34] *** mark-use has quit IRC[13:27:46] <Haris1> is it possible to 'automatically' disable email accounts that have not been accessed for a certain ammount of time or days or weeks or months ?[13:28:08] <sysmonk> Haris1: define 'accessed'[13:29:07] <Haris1> what does accessing email mean from a user's point of view?[13:29:16] <Haris1> anyone who use their email account, access it[13:29:28] <Haris1> that's exactly what it means here[13:29:42] <Haris1> for example, one client says[13:30:06] <Haris1> like yahoo and hotmail accounts de-activate when people don't use/access it for a certain ammount of time or days or weeks or months[13:30:58] <cpm> well, since this sorta implies the user 'checking' mail, which has a lot more to do with the pop or imap server than it does postfix, , ,[13:31:18] <Haris1> has anyone implemented such an approach?[13:31:19] <cpm> possible? certainly.[13:31:25] <Haris1> is yes, how?[13:31:54] <sysmonk> Haris1: again, define access[13:32:03] <cpm> Haris1, this comes under the question type 'Can a computer be programmed to do things automatically'.[13:32:07] <sysmonk> yahoo can look that cause when you legin they store last login info[13:32:11] *** PcPixel has joined #postfix[13:32:17] <sysmonk> but with your setup, accessing might mean A LOT[13:32:24] <PcPixel> morning mr monk :)[13:32:26] <sysmonk> i.e. sending email through postfix with that user[13:32:29] <sysmonk> or reading pop3/imap[13:32:36] <sysmonk> or even receiving email by postfix[13:32:40] *** pgega has joined #postfix[13:33:03] <sysmonk> PcPixel: afternoon[13:33:17] <Haris1> well, its certainly when the user last checked their mail[13:33:34] <Flobbie> find another error: can't connect to localhost through socket. But why can postmap -q connect?[13:33:35] <sysmonk> do they check by postfix or imap/pop3?[13:33:47] <sysmonk> (stupid question, but it's what i want you to understand)[13:34:00] <Haris1> ofcourse, they do it via imap/pop3[13:34:08] <Haris1> that's why I asked ->[13:34:12] <pgega> Hi all, I am having a problem running amavisd-new and postfix, it looks like amavisd is not listening on 10024 port, I got "connect to 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: Connection refused (port 10024)" in /var/log/maillog[13:34:16] <Haris1> has anyone implemented such an approach? is yes, how?[13:34:22] <sysmonk> then, the next question, is postfix an imap/pop3 daemon?[13:34:28] <sysmonk> the answer is no[13:34:34] <sysmonk> then why the hell are you asking on #postfix ?![13:34:34] <sysmonk> ;)[13:35:54] <pgega> maybe because it is quite integrated thing ?[13:36:06] <Haris1> no he's just being ...[13:38:26] *** ploploop is now known as brancaleone[13:38:49] <cpm> Haris1, maybe you'd like to contract sysmonk to build something for you?[13:39:16] <sysmonk> pgega: it's not integrated[13:39:23] <sysmonk> pgega: postfix doesn't have any imap/pop3 'integration'[13:39:30] <sysmonk> pgega: we don't even know which imap/pop3 daemon he uses[13:39:53] <sysmonk> he just needs to somehow tell his imap/pop3 to update a field in mysql on each login, or parse the logs and update those fields daily[13:40:00] <Haris1> maybe[13:40:07] <sysmonk> and in mysql add a where field to check that field[13:40:12] <sysmonk> mysql query*[13:40:23] <sysmonk> and none of that work is postfix related[13:40:32] <pgega> sysmonk: sorry I do not see the backlog , so I thought that you are saying that in regards to amavisd[13:40:35] <sysmonk> (except the mysql query in lookup maps)[13:40:41] <sysmonk> pgega: nooo :)[13:40:58] <pgega> my fault :)[13:40:59] <sysmonk> pgega: sorry, i wasn't answering your question, it was for Haris1 :) it's not related to amavisd[13:41:09] <pgega> now i know :)[13:41:22] <pgega> any ideas in terms of amavisd ? :|[13:43:34] <Haris1> if I know sysmonk[13:43:39] <Haris1> he'll refer you to #amavis[13:43:40] <Haris1> lol[13:44:33] <sysmonk> pgega: so, amavisd doesn't listen, did you run it? :)[13:44:44] <sysmonk> pgega: although yes, Haris1 is right, it's a question for #amavis :PPP[13:45:22] <pgega> yes I run amavis :)[13:45:27] <cpm> !topic[13:45:27] <knoba> cpm: "topic" : The Postfix MTA || Wiki: postfixwiki.org || On using IRC: workaround.org/moin/GettingHelpOnIrc || Bot info: workaround.org/f=postfix || post postconf -n and relevant logs to a pastebin when asking questions / check your logs / know your unix basics[13:45:36] <cpm> post postconf -n and relevant logs to a pastebin when asking question[13:50:05] *** DrChandra has quit IRC[13:50:24] *** DrChandra has joined #postfix[13:54:27] *** madrescher has quit IRC[13:54:49] *** DrChandra is now known as Guest82778[13:59:35] *** diabollo has quit IRC[14:01:18] <ams> kan you have split lines in /etc/aliases?[14:01:22] <PcPixel> sysmonk: man youre right, my main.cf DOES need tweaking lol[14:01:53] <ams> foo: bar[14:01:54] <ams> baz[14:01:59] <ams> okie, lovley, thanks.[14:04:35] *** jellis-real has joined #postfix[14:09:03] *** ming_zym has quit IRC[14:12:31] *** Vivek has joined #postfix[14:13:04] *** Blue_Mousey has joined #postfix[14:13:21] *** sophokles1 has joined #postfix[14:13:33] <Blue_Mousey> Is there some sort of checklist to make sure mail sent from your mailservers doesn't get written down as "spam"?[14:14:34] <_ruben> if such a list would exist, even spammers would use it[14:15:15] <lunaphyte_> spammers do use it. that's part of the reason fighting spam is hard.[14:15:52] <Blue_Mousey> _ruben, that's why we got blacklists...[14:15:54] *** rootsvr has joined #postfix[14:16:18] *** sophokles2 has joined #postfix[14:16:19] <lunaphyte_> Blue_Mousey: make sure your a and ptr records match, and announce yourself to other mailservers as who you appear to them as.[14:16:46] <Blue_Mousey> However, it shouldn't be that we are going to provide security trough obscurity, cause we won't be able to "correctly" configure anything if that's the case.[14:16:58] *** Ratler has joined #postfix[14:17:00] *** rootsvr has quit IRC[14:17:05] <Blue_Mousey> lunaphyte, a matches, ptr matches and it announces itself as its rDNS[14:17:33] <Blue_Mousey> However the only "maybe strange" thing i do is, i use mailservers outside of its own domain, but i can't imagine that is causing the problems[14:19:16] <lunaphyte_> what does that mean, "outside it's own domain"?[14:19:27] <Ratler> Quick question, is it possible to chain content filters? ie have two content filters and forcing the delivery to pass through both of them?[14:19:50] <sysmonk> Ratler: yes[14:19:50] <jduggan> he means mx1.hisdomain.tld handles mail for anotherdomain.tld[14:19:55] <jduggan> nothing wrong with that[14:20:06] *** hparker has joined #postfix[14:20:23] <Ratler> sysmonk: Got any hints on how to do that or where I can find more information about it?[14:20:44] <lunaphyte_> Blue_Mousey: yeah, that is fine.[14:21:22] <sysmonk> Ratler: just... chain them :)[14:21:36] <sysmonk> Ratler: i.e. in amavisd you specify where the scanned mail should go[14:21:53] <sysmonk> you can say to pass the scanned mail to some other 'content filter' i.e. dkim[14:22:09] <lunaphyte_> Ratler: CONTENT_INSPECTION_README[14:22:14] <Blue_Mousey> lunaphyte, i have domain A.com and domain B.com and i use for MX record for domain A mail.B.com[14:22:19] <sysmonk> they all talk smtp mostly, so just tell them to deliver everything to the next filter[14:22:31] <sysmonk> OR, return mail to postfix and tell postfix to deliver to another content filter[14:22:46] <jduggan> Blue_Mousey: nothing wrong with that[14:22:58] <sysmonk> i.e. postfix(25) -> amavisd (10024) -> postfix (10025) -> dkim (10026) -> postfix(10027) -> lda[14:23:08] <sysmonk> (wee, how much overhead :P )[14:23:36][14:23:52] *** Nathariel has quit IRC[14:23:54] <sysmonk> Ratler: heh, the two ways i mentioned :)[14:24:51] <Ratler> Thanks gonna do some trial and error then :)[14:27:26] <lunaphyte_> Blue_Mousey: if what you're really getting at is that some mta is marking messages from you as spam, then go ask whoever runs the mta.[14:27:42] <ams> i need suggestions for handling a bazillion aliases...[14:27:50] <lunaphyte_> once you find out why, i'm sure someone here can help you.[14:28:22] *** jcm has joined #postfix[14:28:24] <sysmonk> ams: | /dev/null[14:28:30] <lunaphyte_> ams: delete key.[14:28:30] <sysmonk> a cach-all that is :)[14:28:51] <ams> haha[14:28:51] <ams> yeah[14:28:53] <ams> i wish...[14:29:02] <f3ew> RDBMS[14:29:03] <Blue_Mousey> sysmonk, leave my Maildir alone![14:29:34] *** sophokles has quit IRC[14:30:18] <sysmonk> Blue_Mousey: um, what?[14:30:29] <ams> sysmonk, lunaphyte_, i was thinking more of the lines of having a ldap attribute that spans a whole sub-branch...[14:30:31] <sysmonk> ams: what's the problem with aliases?[14:32:06] <Blue_Mousey> sysmonk, it's a joke.. you said /dev/null and that happens to be where all my mail goes to[14:32:21] *** sophokles1 has quit IRC[14:32:37] <sysmonk> oh, then we share a mailbox[14:32:50] <Blue_Mousey> Is yours always as empy as mine? :>[14:32:57] <Blue_Mousey> empty even[14:33:01] *** ams has quit IRC[14:33:25] <sysmonk> if ~300 mails / day is empty then yeah ;)[14:33:30] *** ams has joined #postfix[14:33:32] <ams> blech and crap[14:33:36] <sysmonk> although no, much more[14:33:44] <ams> sorry for that, what did i miss?[14:34:33] <lunaphyte_> an ldap attribute that spans a whole sub-branch... i'm not quite sure i get that.[14:34:43] <Blue_Mousey> sysmonk, doesn't matter... if your mailbox is /dev/null :) it's always empty![14:35:28] <sysmonk> i don't get the problem at all[14:35:49] *** Nockian has quit IRC[14:35:54] <ams> lunaphyte_: well, say you have... ou=People,dc=FOO,dc=BAR, and then you have uid=ams,ou=People,dc=FOO,BAR, uid=lunaphyte,ou=People,dc=FOO,BAR, ...[14:36:54] <ams> lunaphyte_: instead of having to put each luser in to a specific alias, you could just say that ou=People,dc=FOO,dc=BAR has some attribute, lets cal it mail-list (for lack of a better name), that when postfix looks it up, it would send mail to ams and lunaphyte[14:37:00] <ams> (based on the uid for example)[14:37:20] <Blue_Mousey> uid=Blue_Mousey,ou=Idiots,dc=FOO,dc=BAR[14:37:26] <sysmonk> ams: define the problem first[14:38:25] <ams> sysmonk: a damn lazy sysadmin that doesn't want to manually update lots of aliases[14:39:26] <lunaphyte_> ams: he's asking why you have so many aliases to update in the first place.[14:39:33] <ams> sysmonk: i have a "office" alias that includes about 100 people, not fun[14:39:44] <ams> lunaphyte_: ask the guy before me :)[14:40:23] <lunaphyte_> but, with respect to your example, that's a pretty straightforward query, it would seem to me.[14:40:34] <f3ew> Use a RDBMS with an appropriate query, or LDAP ...[14:41:00] <lunaphyte_> i'm w/ sysmonk though, i still don't get the problem. so someone leaves, remove them from the alias. someone new comes, add them.[14:41:10] <ams> lunaphyte_: maintaince burden[14:41:23] <ams> lunaphyte_: and easy to forget to remove person from FOO, but not from BAR[14:41:31] <sysmonk> automate the maintainance[14:41:32] <ams> lunaphyte_: or you add them to FOO, but not to BAR and BAZ[14:41:45] <ams> sysmonk: right, and that is EXACTLY what i am asking about,how to use ldap to do it for me[14:41:50] <ams> jeez...[14:41:53] <sysmonk> we don't know your current structure so we can't help much[14:42:14] <sysmonk> we don't even know where you store aliases now[14:42:26] <ams> so ask[14:42:35] <ams> i am not going to explain you the whole setup cause i think it is fun[14:42:38] <sysmonk> so you got answered by f3ew already twice[14:42:40] <lunaphyte_> like i said, the example you offered seems suitable, all things being equal - just do it and so[14:42:42] <ams> no, i didn't[14:42:42] <sysmonk> RDBMS or LDAP[14:42:50] <ams> oh please, that isn't an answer[14:42:54] <lunaphyte_> err, *do it and see.[14:42:56] <ams> you could just as well tell me to use vi[14:43:03] <sysmonk> oh please, how can we answer without knowing your current setup[14:43:15] <sysmonk> how do you add users? where do you store them? in what form?[14:43:19] <sysmonk> do we know ANY of that?[14:43:20] <ams> sysmonk: so for cripes sake, ask, i will not explain the whole setup because i love explaiing it[14:43:30] <ams> i don't even know what the heck you want to know[14:43:39] <ams> hence this thing called "questions"[14:44:11] <sysmonk> ams: which part of "we don't know where you store aliases now" or "how do you add users?" or "where do you store them?" or "in what form?" don't you get?[14:44:16] <ams> sysmonk: /etc/aliases[14:44:23] <Blue_Mousey> ams: I don't like to be the moral knight, but could you change your tone a bit? This is a free support channel that comes without any garantuee's. If you need something to work instantly, hire someone in to do it.[14:44:25] <sysmonk> ams: hence, ask SMART questions, and not QUESTIONS[14:44:25] <ams> sysmonk: in ldap, using posixAccount[14:44:26] <sysmonk> !smart[14:44:27] <knoba> sysmonk: Error: "smart" is not a valid command.[14:44:39] <sysmonk> ams: so /etc/aliases or ldap?[14:44:53] <ams> Blue_Mousey: no, it comes qith a guarantee to waste peoples time by not helping[14:45:02] <ams> sysmonk: so /etc/aliases or ldap what?[14:45:13] <lunaphyte_> i think he's saying aliases in /etc/aliases, users added in ldap.[14:45:14] <ams> sysmonk: aliases are currently stored in /etc/aliases, users are in ldap[14:45:31] <sysmonk> ams: so answer like that, and not '/etc/aliases\nldap'[14:45:51] <Blue_Mousey> ams, i personally wouldn't help you. Your so stuck up your own behind you think you can demand anything from anyone.[14:45:53] <ams> sysmonk: ask don't ask "where are alises stored\n?how are users added?"[14:46:19] <sysmonk> ams: i'm asking just the same way you are[14:46:24] <sysmonk> "how do i manage my aliases"[14:46:29] <lunaphyte_> ams: you gave an example regarding ldap. it's a halfway decent idea. so try it, and see if it works for you.[14:46:46] <ams> 14:46 /ignore Blue_Mousey[14:46:47] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: ldap would be best this time cause he's already storing his users in ldap[14:47:05] <lunaphyte_> i'm sure we can help if you get stuck.[14:47:09] <ams> lunaphyte_: wouldn't even know where to start with the aliases, does postfix traverse the subtree?[14:47:12] <sysmonk> although it requires knowledge of ldap, but i'm not good at ldap ;/[14:47:16] <ams> how are attributes gathered?[14:47:28] <sysmonk> ams: man ldap_table, i think you can define the 'sub'[14:47:35] <lunaphyte_> LDAP_README[14:47:40] <sysmonk> scope: sub[14:48:05] <ams> thanks[14:48:40] *** F6F has quit IRC[14:49:50] <lunaphyte_> ams: hint. use ldapsearch first, before you even touch postfix, to construct what you believe to be a working query. then adapt it to postfix's ldap mechanism/[14:51:02] <ams> i know my ldap, but not my postfix[15:02:14] *** xpoint has joined #postfix[15:02:19] *** carl- has quit IRC[15:04:11] <lunaphyte_> Blue_Mousey: if what you're really getting at is that some mta is marking messages from you as spam, then go ask whoever runs the mta.[15:05:30] <Blue_Mousey> lunaphyte_, i only am doing research, not actually using it for production[15:06:01] <Blue_Mousey> I just want to make sure that i won't be written down as spam because i did not correctly configure or forgot to configure something[15:07:10] <lunaphyte_> generally speaking, if you don't send spam, and are a friendly smtp neighbor, you'll be fine.[15:07:51] <Blue_Mousey> However, misconfiguring your mailserver with bogus MX records, or failing the reverse information or missing a A record, is enough reason for some anti-spam filters to write you down as spam[15:08:26] <lunaphyte_> certainly. that falls under the category of being a friendly smtp neighbor.[15:08:55] <Blue_Mousey> Beyond that, is there anything specific i might want to consider?[15:11:09] <lunaphyte_> sure, slashing your wrists.[15:11:52] <lunaphyte_> if your about to become a mail admin. expect to spend _astronomically_ more time fighting the spam that is delivered to you, rather than the opposite.[15:11:57] <lunaphyte_> *you're[15:12:36] <Blue_Mousey> Well, i have already some measures of how i'm going to prevent spam[15:13:09] *** higuita has quit IRC[15:13:14] <Blue_Mousey> I just like to be sure, other smtp servers don't have a good / obvious reason to deny mail from my smtp[15:13:32] <lunaphyte_> do yourself a favor and forget the word prevent :)[15:14:06] <Blue_Mousey> My boss would kill me if i did[15:14:13] <Blue_Mousey> or atleast, fire me[15:14:40] <lunaphyte_> huh?[15:14:52] <Blue_Mousey> forgetting the word prevent[15:15:16] *** higuita has joined #postfix[15:15:17] <lunaphyte_> my point is that you can fight it, you can mitigate it, you can deter it, but cannot _every_ prevent it. never.[15:15:23] <lunaphyte_> err, _ever_[15:15:43] <lunaphyte_> anyway, there will always be the occasional mta that might decide mail (or certain mail) from you is spam. you just deal with it as appropriate and move on.[15:15:46] <Blue_Mousey> Maybe not entirely, but atleast as much as i can[15:16:02] <Blue_Mousey> You can't prevent downtime, but you can make the chance of downtime very slim[15:17:00] <Blue_Mousey> Same goes for other mailservers detecting mail from my servers as spam[15:17:08] <Blue_Mousey> I try to make the chance as small as possible[15:17:28] <Blue_Mousey> and therefor for my boss, "prevent" things from not working correctly :)[15:17:35] <lunaphyte_> spam is probably one of the best demonstrations of the uncertainty principle that are out there.[15:18:13] <lunaphyte_> the smartest thing you could do would be to educate your boss on the reality of there is no prevention.[15:18:53] *** higuita has quit IRC[15:19:23] *** kk_CHN has quit IRC[15:19:43] <Blue_Mousey> lunaphyte_, to prevent spam i already have calculated certain measurements: 1blacklist checking, 2using spamfilters (various), 3try to use as less catch-all addresses as possible, 4make sure software is up to date, 5, make sure software is correctly configured (and deny access from unauthed connections or such)[15:20:19] <Blue_Mousey> i don't care if mails take 1 minute to go trough the process, that's more reason for me to go to my boss and tell him i would like another few servers[15:21:13] <lunaphyte_> still with that word prevent... :)[15:21:20] *** Jax has quit IRC[15:21:24] <Blue_Mousey> i try to prevent[15:21:34] <Blue_Mousey> to keep spam from filling my maildir's[15:21:42] *** AcTiVaTe has joined #postfix[15:21:55] <Blue_Mousey> So, prevent is appropriate, however i could never garantuee there won't get any spam trough[15:22:20] <lunaphyte_> the single most effective deterrent to spam atm is greylisting.[15:22:29] <vice-versa> mitigate would be a better choice imo[15:22:49] <Blue_Mousey> lunaphyte_ even that is risky[15:22:57] <lunaphyte_> well, i'm not interested in a pedantic argument, but believe me when i say that the term prevent has no place in a conversation regarding spam.[15:23:02] <Blue_Mousey> As you might greylist a server that is vulernable to abuse[15:23:03] <lunaphyte_> it's all risky.[15:23:13] <lunaphyte_> huh?[15:23:19] <Blue_Mousey> vulnerable*[15:23:28] <lunaphyte_> what does that mean?[15:24:42] <ams> lunaphyte_: you can prevent spam[15:24:46] <ams> quite easily infact[15:24:50] <Blue_Mousey> oh god[15:25:06] <ams> don't read mail, don't have a email account[15:25:06] <lunaphyte_> sure. don't use email.[15:25:09] <ams> right[15:25:43] <ams> or high a monkey to read all incoming mail[15:26:05] <lunaphyte_> i'm all for that. i think the internet is a horrible, terrible thing.[15:26:32] <Blue_Mousey> Let's pull the plug[15:26:40] <Flobbie> what does this mean: Command died with status 89: "/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver")[15:26:58] <Blue_Mousey> Flobbie, that means something went really wrong[15:27:57] <lunaphyte_> it means look at the messages that precede it and look at the log messages that that program generates.[15:29:25] *** neoeinstein has quit IRC[15:29:37] <Flobbie> lunaphyte_: Where should I look? That is a message from the mail.log: Aug 7 15:26:10 flobbie postfix/pipe[5333]: 5A4812BFC8A5: to=<info at flobbie dot de>, relay=dovecot, delay=0.04, delays=0.03/0.01/0/0.01, dsn=5.3.0, status=bounced (Command died with status 89: "/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver")[15:31:49] <lunaphyte_> grep '5A4812BFC8A5' mail.log[15:31:52] <lunaphyte_> use pastebin[15:33:20] *** lunaphyte__ has joined #postfix[15:33:23] <Flobbie> lunaphyte_: http://pastie.org/249169[15:33:27] *** lunaphyte__ has quit IRC[15:34:02] <lunaphyte_> look at dovecot's logs.[15:37:07] *** saurabhb has quit IRC[15:46:52] *** Kako_ has joined #postfix[15:47:09] *** _Driver_ has joined #postfix[15:47:40] *** Kako_ is now known as Kako[15:51:02] <ams> hmph[15:52:05] <Flobbie> lunaphyte_: Thanks. It is working now. Wrong uid/gid.[15:52:13] <ams> hmph[15:52:23] <ams> scope=sub doesn't do what i want it to do[15:56:34] *** RockerMONO has joined #postfix[15:57:24] <RockerMONO> Hey when i start postfix (on archlinux) it says something is already bound to port 25 but netstat and iproute (ss) show nothing is on that port, are their any known issues with this?[15:59:41] *** AcTiVaTe has quit IRC[16:13:12] *** meshugga_ has quit IRC[16:16:53] *** magyar_ has quit IRC[16:17:33] *** magyar_ has joined #postfix[16:18:14] <PcPixel> what is the difference between reject_unknown_client and reject_unknown_helo_hostname[16:18:23] <PcPixel> oh wait[16:18:24] <PcPixel> nevermind[16:18:25] <PcPixel> got it[16:19:40] *** _Driver_ has quit IRC[16:20:00] *** _Driver_ has joined #postfix[16:22:54] *** rakosh76 has quit IRC[16:23:20] *** felix-da-catz_zz is now known as felix-da-catz[16:30:01] <Flobbie> is it normal, that when I enable sasl that a relay test say: Host rejected connection.[16:30:37] *** seekwill has joined #postfix[16:33:07] <shasta> this is not a very informative error message (and I'm pretty sure it's not postfix-generated)[16:33:42] <Flobbie> I am using dovecot sasl with postfix[16:34:05] <shasta> pastebin relevant log entries[16:42:50] <riz_> I don't understand very well why some non existing e-mails are rejecet immediatly with messages "user unknow in vitural table" and others are checked from rbl instead of rejecetd immediately[16:43:26] <sysmonk> riz_: pastebin postconf -n && logs[16:46:15] <riz_> sysmonk for sure. Here is it http://pastebin.com/m674f288a[16:47:20] <sysmonk> riz_: show the log part with the reject of user unknown in virtual table[16:48:58] *** mark-use has joined #postfix[16:50:24] *** keffer has quit IRC[16:50:24] <riz_> sysmonk ok. http://pastebin.com/m6a31dc37[16:51:51] <riz_> This would be the right behavior I expected for each non-existing user[16:51:53] <pgega> hmm, mail destined for root is delivered to nobody spool or, at least some of it , here is postconf -n http://pastebin.com/m4c3b2209[16:52:00] <sysmonk> riz_: a simple answer - because those mails aren't blacklister[16:52:05] <sysmonk> blacklisted*[16:52:11] <sysmonk> damn, ip's, not mails[16:52:48] <sysmonk> riz_: no, you check rbl's first, then recipient 'validity'[16:53:22] *** F6F has joined #postfix[16:55:07] <riz_> sysmonk in other words: smtpd_recipient_restrictions BEFORE smtpd_client_restrictions?[16:55:29] <sysmonk> riz_: in other words, smtpd_client_restrictions are used BEFORE smtpd_recipient_restrictions[16:55:32] <PcPixel> right[16:55:36] <sysmonk> and you have rbl checks in client restrictions[16:55:38] <PcPixel> the order they get processed in[16:55:39] <sysmonk> don't you?[16:55:41] <PcPixel> (im pretty sure)[16:55:41] <PcPixel> is:[16:56:05] <PcPixel> smtpd: client_rest, helo_rest, sender_rest, recipient_rest, data_rest, header_checks, body_checks[16:56:19] <PcPixel> rest = restrictions[16:57:43] <riz_> sysmonk, PcPixel I try to put smtpd_client_restrictions before smtpd_recipient_restrictions and retry.[16:57:56] <PcPixel> riz_: it doesnt matter wher ein the main.cf they occur[16:58:05] <PcPixel> the can appear in any order in the main.cf[16:58:10] <PcPixel> they[16:58:20] <PcPixel> no matter where they appear, that is the order they are applied in[16:59:10] *** mark-use has quit IRC[16:59:20] <PcPixel> sysmonk: correct?[16:59:27] <shasta> almost :)[16:59:37] <riz_> PcPixel order doesn't matter?[16:59:46] <PcPixel> sysmonk: im reworking my main.cf right now & i can already see a huge difference[16:59:54] <PcPixel> riz_: its my understanding that it doesnt.[17:00:06] <PcPixel> if im wrong, im hoping someone will correct me :)[17:00:59] <riz_> PcPixel so I don't understand very well because this happend[17:01:15] <PcPixel> "this"?[17:02:10] *** roe_ has quit IRC[17:02:16] *** cilly has quit IRC[17:02:39] <riz_> this: some mail are rejected with "virtual user non exist" and some other (not existing)are checked with rbl[17:02:48] *** roe_ has joined #postfix[17:02:50] <shasta> PcPixel, you're correct, with one thing worth mentioning: smtpd_delay_reject[17:03:01] <shasta> sigh[17:03:29] <shasta> riz, you've got some RBL checks performed BEFORE the rcpt to: stage[17:03:51] *** ming_zym has joined #postfix[17:04:43] <shasta> PcPixel, oh, and there are smtpd_etrn_restrictions you didn't mention[17:04:52] <sysmonk> shasta: and some missing restrictions :)[17:05:04] <sysmonk> shasta: yeah, one of them is etrn[17:05:07] <sysmonk> another one is end_of_data[17:05:23] <shasta> yep[17:06:20] <riz_> ah right![17:10:12] * PcPixel wants a cookie[17:10:13] <PcPixel> :)[17:10:27] <riz_> you meant: I need to add a missing restrictions in smtpd_client_restrictions BEFORE rbl check[17:10:37] <riz_> (maybe) :)[17:10:52] <sysmonk> k, /me go home. you be good. not fight.[17:10:53] <sysmonk> ;)[17:10:58] <PcPixel> sysmonk: maybe[17:11:02] <PcPixel> leave the beatin stick though[17:14:01] <riz_> sysmonk,PcPixel works :) Thanks![17:14:15] <riz_> now it's a little bit more clear[17:17:11] <PcPixel> no prob[17:17:19] *** Guest82778 has quit IRC[17:21:23] *** higuita has joined #postfix[17:21:40] *** d0uglas has quit IRC[17:23:41] *** Grufft3ch has joined #postfix[17:23:46] <PcPixel> ok this is odd. i am testing out reject_unknown_client . If i do a DNS lookup for the server i am connecting from, i get the right answer. if i telnet in & greet myself that way it says it can't find hostname w the ip im connecting from[17:27:34] <PcPixel> if the linux box can do the DNS, shouldnt postfix then?[17:28:32] <PcPixel> doh[17:28:34] <PcPixel> nevermind[17:28:40] <PcPixel> name -> IP works[17:28:43] <PcPixel> not IP -> name[17:29:09] *** mark-use has joined #postfix[17:33:52] <e_> hm. how can i permit relaying to any domain from localhost?[17:35:07] <f3ew> it's permitted by default[17:36:10] <e_> but i still get "relay access denied"[17:36:37] <e_> i need to send out mails from various domains from localhost via smtp..[17:36:40] *** alienbrain has quit IRC[17:37:26] <e_> like.. from any to any domain[17:38:23] <riz_> e_: what do you have in main.cf related to: mydestination = relayhost = and mynetworks = ?[17:39:46] <e_> mydestination are a few domains i receive mail for, relayhost is our central MX (not this postfix) and mynetworks is.. oh[17:39:48] <e_> no localhost[17:41:03] <riz_> e_ put the ip of your lan into[17:41:20] <e_> that's done already[17:41:25] <e_> i'm really talking about localhost[17:41:46] <e_> i have two smtpd's, one for localhost, one for the network interface..[17:41:46] *** shinao1 has joined #postfix[17:41:56] *** rootsvr has joined #postfix[17:42:00] <e_> partly because i require tls on the network interface[17:42:48] <e_> okay, adding localhost there did the trick[17:42:50] <e_> thanks for the hin[17:42:53] <e_> +t[18:05:17] <Grufft3ch> is there anyway to make postfix-mysql actually log the quieries its trying? for some reason it thinks the user adam doesn't exist (and it shouldnt, it should be searching for the entire email)[18:09:09] <lunaphyte_> look at your mysql logs.[18:09:14] *** Nockian has joined #postfix[18:12:31] *** lunaphyte_ has quit IRC[18:21:33] *** phnord has quit IRC[18:23:58] *** sophokles2 has quit IRC[18:26:01] <rob0> What query did you tell it to use?[18:26:05] <rob0> !postmapq[18:26:05] <knoba> rob0: "postmapq" : You can check your lookups with the postmap command. Example: if you defined "transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/transport.cf" you may check this mapping by running "postmap -q domain.com mysql:/etc/postfix/transport.cf" and see if it works.[18:27:54] <bondoer> hi folks, does somewhere lies some nice graph about postfix architecture, there is one page OVERVIEW but it is not maintanted anymore; beside that, what program would you recommend for drawing nice diagrams :) (i know thats little bit out of scope of postfix, but i want to fdraw the postfix architecture)[18:27:56] <rob0> Sounds like maybe you listed a virtual domain (you intended it to be virtual) in mydestination.[18:27:59] *** lunaphyte_ has joined #postfix[18:28:19] <rob0> OVERVIEW is still maintained, I think.[18:28:46] *** pgega has quit IRC[18:30:09] <rob0> The unmaintained pages have all lowercase names (excluding the man pages of course.)[18:30:34] <rob0> Furthermore, they each have a WARNING at the top.[18:30:56] <rob0> And, check out dia for drawing.[18:32:01] *** Kako is now known as Kako_[18:32:21] *** keffer has joined #postfix[18:34:36] <bondoer> rob0: yea i used dia, but you know, i like round things and nice graphs and so on, on Mac there is solution, but i am not on mac :(; but thanks anyway i will draw it maybe in that dia[18:35:33] <sysmonk> there's always gd and perl for drawing, if you like it more :P[18:36:05] <bondoer> rob0: yea you were right, it is in lower case, i meant this page http://www.postfix.org/architecture.html ; it got drawing which really shows the whole architecture...[18:36:12] <bondoer> sysmonk: lol :)[18:36:22] <bondoer> sysmonk: i was adviced to use AutoCAD for it :)[18:37:03] <rob0> That old architecture.html page has a graphic. In fact that graphic was the logo before the mouse running with the mailbag.[18:38:47] <bondoer> really, heh nice to know[18:39:17] <bondoer> it wasnt a pretty logo :)[18:50:24] <sysmonk> rob0: _that_ was a logo ?[18:50:25] * sysmonk didn't know[18:50:39] <sysmonk> i'm still a young user of postfix[18:50:58] <jeev> rob0, you know how to fully disable quota[18:50:59] <jeev> ?[18:51:01] <jeev> !quota[18:51:01] <knoba> jeev: Error: "quota" is not a valid command.[18:52:20] <sysmonk> knoba lags?[18:52:24] <sysmonk> aaahhh, jeev is on my ignore list[18:52:24] *** ming_zym has quit IRC[18:52:52] <jeev> ahhhhhhh hah[18:54:10] <seekwill> sysmonk: Am I on your ignore list?[18:54:36] <cpm> rob0, the escaping rat?[18:54:38] <cpm> :)[18:54:56] <sysmonk> cpm: did anyone ask about being on ignore list?[18:55:01] <sysmonk> ;P[18:55:02] <f3ew> seekwill did[18:55:15] <sysmonk> strange, so silent here, even f3ew doesn't speak[18:55:16] <sysmonk> ;P[18:55:44] * rob0 tries "/ignore *"[18:55:58] <cpm> sysmonk, I don't know.[18:56:06] <cpm> if they did, I couldn't see it.[18:56:25] <cpm> seekwill, can you see yourself?[18:56:31] <sysmonk> hehe[18:56:49] <rob0> wow, suddenly it got real quiet[18:57:06] <seekwill> hello? anyone here?[18:57:07] <rob0> dfffjhjklheugbilnkjne[18:57:10] <cpm> did rob0 just say something?[18:57:18] <cpm> seekwill, I can't hear you[18:57:23] <rob0> hmmm, I can't see myself typoing[18:57:28] <seekwill> cpm: Hmm..[18:57:59] <jeev> damn quota's[18:59:35] * sysmonk thinks #postfix went crazy[19:00:16] <PcPixel> sysmonk: Just?[19:00:38] <sysmonk> PcPixel: um?[19:00:51] <tuxick> it always was[19:00:51] <tuxick> normal people would use qmail[19:00:56] <PcPixel> its been crazy for a while :)[19:01:07] <shasta> tuxick, or Exchange[19:01:11] <sysmonk> tuxick: oh, suuuure, qmail is for 'normal' people[19:01:37] <sysmonk> PcPixel: i don't know, but it sure did get crazy when i first came here[19:01:44] <sysmonk> ok ok, not the first time, the second time[19:01:51] * sysmonk remembers my first question in #postfix[19:01:59] <sysmonk> i think that was one of the last questions too[19:03:25] *** githogori has quit IRC[19:04:09] <PcPixel> sysmonk: "hello i have a question about postfix?"[19:04:10] <PcPixel> ;)[19:04:20] *** Pazzo has quit IRC[19:05:36] <rob0> I have a question about postfix. How come I can't telnet to 110?[19:05:50] <cpm> rob0, did you use a serial cable?[19:05:56] <cpm> telnet to the serial port[19:06:10] <seekwill> What's a serial cable?[19:06:19] <seekwill> Oh, SATA?[19:06:22] *** Gaarv has left #postfix[19:06:41] *** rootsvr has quit IRC[19:07:01] <rob0> The serial port, is that where they load ships in Battle Creek, Michigan?[19:07:18] <Haris> postfix serves on 110?[19:07:19] <rob0> Oh I know, it means you pour a too-sweet wine on your corn flakes.[19:07:20] <Haris> o_O[19:07:35] <cpm> similar, but it's one the side of your computer, opposite the drink holder. And there aren't any ships[19:07:45] <Haris> damned jokes[19:07:53] <seekwill> Which side? I only have three[19:07:55] <cpm> serves up cereal[19:07:58] <Haris> there's always one flying around[19:08:21] <cpm> seekwill, well, if I could hear you, it only has 2, the in-side, and the out-side[19:08:35] *** madrescher has joined #postfix[19:08:53] <seekwill> ah[19:08:54] <rob0> Mine's a Mobius computer, only has one side.[19:08:58] <cpm> the in-side is where all those nasty bits are. funny stuff that cuts up your hands when you poke around.[19:09:18] <cpm> the cereal port is on the other side.[19:09:31] <cpm> use that to telnet to the michigan port[19:09:42] <cpm> or telephone, which ever[19:10:01] <rob0> Telephone to the port-of-call[19:10:29] <sysmonk> heh, talking about ports[19:10:35] <sysmonk> i like the signature in one of our clients emails[19:10:42] <sysmonk> "SMTP port administrator"[19:10:48] <cpm> heh[19:10:52] <cpm> fair enough[19:11:03] <cpm> that's kinda what I do. Sad really[19:11:32] <sysmonk> i also like the "Chief network administrator / billing manager"[19:11:32] <lunaphyte_> where i used to live, there was this business called the teleport. whenever i drove by, i always debated in my head whether or not they actually had one.[19:11:44] <lunaphyte_> err, business park, rather.[19:12:00] <cpm> lunaphyte_, you probably don't want to know.[19:12:04] <cpm> explains a lot though.[19:12:13] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: you could just go and ask them, and you wouldn't have to drive anymore[19:12:26] <sysmonk> cpm: why not?! i really think they have one!!![19:12:32] <sysmonk> what's it called... lsd ?[19:12:56] <lunaphyte_> i could get a lot done with a teleport and a transmogrifier[19:13:15] <cpm> lunaphyte_, yeah, but would you know if you did?[19:13:15] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: i'd just buy a time machine[19:13:30] <cpm> I have a time machine. Wanna see it[19:13:35] <cpm> ?[19:13:38] <sysmonk> cpm: nah, i have one too[19:13:44] <cpm> one what?[19:13:51] <sysmonk> it's called "the broken bios battery"[19:13:55] <sysmonk> it slows down the time![19:14:08] <sysmonk> cpm: one time machine :P[19:14:19] <cpm> I have a time machine, wanna see it?[19:14:29] <Haris> so do they have a teleporter yet?[19:14:33] <lunaphyte_> is it this one? http://colemanzone.com/images/screensaver/wallpapermachine(a)800x600.jpg[19:14:36] <cpm> you know, there's really only one bad thing about having alzheimers[19:15:18] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: oink, that was a good movie btw ;)[19:15:24] <Haris> ou get annoying as it progresses? :p[19:15:49] <Haris> I heard they were building flying cars lik ein BTTF[19:16:12] <sysmonk> Haris: those are built already[19:16:15] <sysmonk> although not massively[19:16:31] <lunaphyte_> anyone want a cerebral enhance-o-tron?[19:16:32] <Haris> How do their engines run?[19:16:52] <Haris> I mean what do their engines run on[19:16:52] <sysmonk> Haris: dunno[19:17:02] <lunaphyte_> Haris: puppies.[19:17:13] <Haris> Well, US of A certainly has alot of them[19:17:14] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: what about kittens?[19:17:19] <Haris> each house has at least one :p[19:17:42] <Haris> Its certainly time they used them for something other than loving[19:17:44] <Haris> lol[19:17:54] <sysmonk> they are used![19:17:58] <sysmonk> look at chineese people[19:18:00] <lunaphyte_> sysmonk: don't be silly. that would be like trying to put gas in a diesel.[19:18:05] <sysmonk> they _love_ puppies[19:18:16] <sysmonk> with ketchup, and while still hot[19:18:31] <lunaphyte_> this has taken a direction i did not intend.[19:18:36] *** mark-use has quit IRC[19:18:50] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: don't like puppies? ;/[19:19:07] <lunaphyte_> be more specific.[19:19:27] <sysmonk> ok ok, i wouldn't even want to try one ( as in food )[19:19:32] <sysmonk> but i do like em ( as in animals)[19:19:59] <Haris> damn, you love dawgs too?[19:20:02] <Haris> lol[19:20:44] <sysmonk> enough offtopic! i like postfix, the end :P[19:20:46] <PcPixel> sysmonk: what was the argument for sticking everything in smtpd_recipient_restrictions again?[19:21:12] <sysmonk> PcPixel: was there one from my side?[19:21:22] <PcPixel> sysmonk: no, not from you specifically no.[19:21:39] <PcPixel> i remember someone giving a reason why youd just use it as kind of a "blanket" restriction class[19:22:04] *** lunaphyte_ is now known as belligerent_esl_[19:22:07] <sysmonk> PcPixel: 1. looks cleaner ( as in you can see the order of all restrictions )[19:22:11] <belligerent_esl_> darn[19:22:16] <sysmonk> 2. order of the restrictions[19:22:16] <sysmonk> ;)[19:22:37] <belligerent_esl_> hows come is postfix cannot delete my emails?[19:22:51] <sysmonk> atleast those are why i put most of the stuff in recipient_r[19:23:03] <sysmonk> belligerent_esl_: postfix doesn't delete emails[19:23:09] <sysmonk> unless they are still in the queue[19:23:18] <PcPixel> this freakin DNS thing is making me nuts[19:23:43] *** pickcoder has joined #postfix[19:23:43] <belligerent_esl_> sysmonk: how many is in the queu?[19:23:55] <sysmonk> belligerent_esl_: woops, i didn't see it was you ;P[19:24:00] <belligerent_esl_> is many cause is deleted before[19:24:13] *** belligerent_esl_ is now known as lunaphyte_[19:24:19] <lunaphyte_> darn, blew my cover.[19:24:24] <sysmonk> ;P[19:25:02] <PcPixel> was funny though :)[19:25:23] <lunaphyte_> i really though i had you on the hook for a moment.[19:25:26] <lunaphyte_> *thought[19:25:47] <lunaphyte_> i was gonna annoy the SHIT out of you. :)[19:26:11] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: yeah, you would[19:26:28] <sysmonk> lunaphyte_: i just thought 'wtf, where did that guy came from?!'[19:26:51] <lunaphyte_> heh[19:27:41] <rob0> lunaphyte_, you already DO annoy us.[19:27:52] <lunaphyte_> i had a bunch of lines all ready to go[19:27:55] <lunaphyte_> weeeee!!!![19:28:02] * lunaphyte_ looks for his trout[19:28:02] *** a13x has joined #postfix[19:28:27] <pickcoder> lunaphyte_: you can go run new copper for the fax server here if you're bored[19:28:40] <pickcoder> or finish the network topolgy map[19:29:35] <lunaphyte_> you may want to think twice before you ask me to actually do either of those things.[19:29:37] *** neoeinstein has joined #postfix[19:29:59] <sysmonk> oh look, now we got serious :([19:30:10] <pickcoder> in that case I'll remember to ask rob0 for postfix help then[19:30:13] <pickcoder> heh[19:30:20] <rob0> /nick serious[19:30:41] <lunaphyte_> the first thing i would do is drag the fax server around the parking lot behind my car and put up a sign where it used to be that read "it's 2008. send email".[19:30:58] <pickcoder> I'm sending e-mail right now...[19:31:02] <pickcoder> all ~40K of them[19:31:27] <lunaphyte_> remind me to visit you in prison :p[19:33:13] <pickcoder> not my head on the block[19:33:17] <pickcoder> I just work here[19:33:21] <pickcoder> :)[19:33:32] <seekwill> 40k? That's it? :)[19:33:48] *** _Driver_ has quit IRC[19:34:00] <pickcoder> I think 10K is too much[19:34:10] <pickcoder> whadda I know...[19:34:25] <sysmonk> seekwill: 40k ... per second ...[19:34:35] *** rmayorga has quit IRC[19:34:39] <seekwill> sysmonk: Nice... how many servers?[19:35:09] <sysmonk> seekwill: nah, i'm not a spammer, i was just commenting on pickcoder situation[19:35:09] <sysmonk> ;)[19:35:26] <seekwill> Just because you send out that many emails, doesn't make you a spammer[19:35:37] <seekwill> "bulk sender" is a better term :P[19:35:44] <pickcoder> 40k/sec[19:35:46] <lunaphyte_> i wonder if people who work at the hormel spam factory call themselves spammers.[19:35:54] <seekwill> lol[19:35:59] * sysmonk only sends about ~150k / day[19:36:02] <pickcoder> we don't have enough bandwidth[19:36:25] <pickcoder> tried to get a T3 and the vendor won't drop an existing contract to rebundle[19:36:33] *** rmayorga has joined #postfix[19:36:48] <pickcoder> (even if we paid for the termination fee)[19:37:02] *** _Driver_ has joined #postfix[19:37:03] <seekwill> heh[19:37:51] <sysmonk> pickcoder: multihoming to the rescue![19:38:01] <sysmonk> or get a better one, and use that one as a backup :)[19:38:03] *** MajorPayne has joined #postfix[19:38:06] * pickcoder wonders how long it will take to send ~40K e-mails with 5 smtp processes[19:38:17] <pickcoder> sysmonk: we have 3 connections[19:38:42] *** jeffspeff has quit IRC[19:38:57] <sysmonk> so get a 4rd one[19:38:58] <pickcoder> the backbones end up on the same AT&T[19:38:58] *** jeffspeff2 has joined #postfix[19:39:05] <sysmonk> 4th*[19:39:11] <pickcoder> so I opted out of BGP[19:39:13] <sysmonk> pickcoder: oh, that kinda sucks[19:39:17] <seekwill> pickcoder: Two minutes[19:39:57] <pickcoder> I will eventually be able to get 5MB over 802.11G[19:40:16] <pickcoder> if my friend gets an OC connection to AT&T's fiber on I-40[19:40:19] <MajorPayne> Hey I want my postfix server to be able to receive email destened for my server on port 25 and 2525 (not as an open relay, just mail destened to my server. I already have 25 configured. I found this line in master.cf: "smtp inet n - - - - smtpd". Could I just add the line: "2525 inet n - - - - smtpd" and have port 2525 act exactly like 25[19:40:52] *** Tykling has joined #postfix[19:40:59] <f3ew> pickcoder, each connection to a smarthost and ~ 1000 recipients/message?[19:41:27] <f3ew> MajorPayne, but no one is going to send you mail on 2525[19:41:27] <pickcoder> f3ew: one connetion per destination, per message[19:41:36] <pickcoder> unless postfix is grouping them[19:41:38] <pickcoder> I'm sending by domain[19:41:49] <MajorPayne> f3ew: I plan on sending myself mail on 2525 from the MTA on my computer.[19:41:54] *** MarcWeber has joined #postfix[19:41:54] <pickcoder> individual submissions[19:41:57] <bondoer> MajorPayne: i dont know how good is this kind of configuration bt i use the exact same port and exact same settings(i've got content_fitler activated, tahts the only difference :D)[19:42:00] <MajorPayne> I want to forward the root mail account from my computer to my server.[19:42:15] <f3ew> MajorPayne, then yes[19:42:18] <MajorPayne> And 25 is blocked.[19:42:21] <f3ew> replicating smtpd will work[19:42:36] <MajorPayne> I don't need TLS or authentication, so I think it would be fine just to have it accept mail on 25 and 2525.[19:43:06] <MajorPayne> Ok, cool.[19:43:14] <MajorPayne> I figured it would, I just wanted to make sure before I did it.[19:43:16] <MajorPayne> Thanks.[19:43:20] <pickcoder> the smtpd process would copy the settings for the main one?[19:43:53] <pickcoder> copy/use[19:44:47] <pickcoder> ugh.. sending by domain is causing issues with connect freq[19:44:53] *** jeffspeff has joined #postfix[19:45:08] <pickcoder> unfortunately I can't send one message to all the recipients[19:45:15] <seekwill> pickcoder: Why don't you outsource it? :)[19:45:28] <pickcoder> each message has an optout link customized for each recipient[19:45:42] <seekwill> That's good[19:46:09] <MajorPayne> I wouldn't be open an open relay or anyhting by adding that line would I (as long as I don't have one already)?[19:46:20] <pickcoder> seekwill: how does outsourcing it help with regards to DNS lookups and such?[19:46:28] <pickcoder> I don't have direct control over our DNS[19:47:03] <seekwill> pickcoder: Outsource the mailings, and let the ESP handle DNS[19:47:03] *** jeffspeff has quit IRC[19:47:08] <seekwill> Run a local DNS cache?[19:47:16] *** linkslice has joined #postfix[19:47:32] *** jeffspeff has joined #postfix[19:47:43] <pickcoder> seekwill: I have a local DNS cache but anything outside our domain is transferred[19:48:11] <MarcWeber> Is it possible to run master in foreground?[19:48:14] <seekwill> Didn't you mention you only run this once a month?[19:48:21] <pickcoder> twice[19:48:31] <seekwill> Seems better to let someone else handle it[19:49:15] <pickcoder> I've considered it, but I'm hoping to change the structure here[19:49:19] <lunaphyte_> MarcWeber: yes[19:49:31] <pickcoder> smaller concentrated mailings based on buying habits[19:49:43] <MarcWeber> lunaphyte_: Can you tell me where to find documentation?[19:49:51] <pickcoder> product line specials.. new items within a vendor/line[19:49:52] <lunaphyte_> www.postfix.org[19:50:03] <seekwill> pickcoder: Ah, ok.[19:50:04] <pickcoder> instead of a generic e-mail to everyone in the world[19:50:11] <pickcoder> that's hard to do if you outsource it[19:50:14] <seekwill> 40k isn't every email address in the world...[19:50:18] <seekwill> :P[19:50:20] <pickcoder> it is to me![19:50:22] <seekwill> hehe[19:50:33] <pickcoder> when it consumes 80% of the avail bandwidth when left to run free[19:50:39] <seekwill> Yeah, in that case, if you were doing things like that, better to keep it inhouse[19:50:42] <bacaci> does postfix need a port to send mail, or just a port to listen for connections on?[19:51:01] <seekwill> bacaci: Yes, yes[19:51:18] <seekwill> First yes is dependent on how indepth of networking you're talking about[19:51:47] <bacaci> seekwill, what is the default port for sending mail, there is a firewill between the web server and the internet?[19:51:57] <pickcoder> tcp uses a port on both sides of the connection[19:52:29] <seekwill> bacaci: For outbound, you need to be able to connect to remote port 25's, and allow traffic back in from the initiator[19:52:54] <seekwill> I think most consumer-grade firewalls does this by default[19:53:59] <bacaci> It's going to be a form for sending mail from a web page, just the ability to send a link to a site, like most pages have, so the only user would be a local one connecting to on port 25, but my question is will mail get through that firewall?[19:54:22] <pickcoder> web servers don't handle mail[19:54:22] <seekwill> You'd have to check your firewall :P[19:54:47] *** cilly has joined #postfix[19:54:48] <pickcoder> they use an MTA to deliver the mail or an MUA to deliver the mail directly instead of queuing it[19:54:57] <pickcoder> both will connect via port 25 to the outside[19:55:04] <bacaci> ok[19:55:29] *** jeffspeff has quit IRC[19:55:32] <pickcoder> if your mail server and web server are on the same box then you only need to worry about the outgoing 25 from there[19:55:44] <pickcoder> if they are split, then you have LAN ports to consider between the boxes[19:55:57] <bacaci> they are on the same box[19:56:13] <bacaci> so, I just need an outgoing port 25, correct?[19:56:21] <pickcoder> from the mail server box ye[19:56:23] <pickcoder> s[19:56:33] <bacaci> cool, thanks all[19:56:56] *** jeffspeff2 has quit IRC[19:59:27] *** jeffspeff has joined #postfix[20:02:03] *** rmayorga has quit IRC[20:02:03] *** jeffspeff has quit IRC[20:02:06] *** rmayorga has joined #postfix[20:02:17] *** jeffspeff2 has joined #postfix[20:06:18] <pickcoder> I bet it would be easier to use the logs to capture bounces than to try to parse the bounced DSN[20:07:36] <seekwill> You really need a commerical, out-of-the-box solution :P[20:07:48] <pickcoder> yes I do..[20:07:54] <pickcoder> but that eats profit[20:08:00] <f3ew> outsource your mailing list management?[20:08:03] <pickcoder> for something that's not going to get a viable ROI[20:08:10] <pickcoder> f3ew: not gonna happen[20:08:13] <seekwill> pickcoder: Talking on IRC doesn't eat profit???[20:08:26] <pickcoder> seekwill: nope.. I multi-thread[20:08:37] <seekwill> hehe[20:08:42] <magyar_> hi, i have an issue where the .procmailrc file is not executed by maildelivery. What could be the problem?[20:09:19] <pickcoder> mailbox_command[20:09:23] <pickcoder> !mailbox_command[20:09:24] <knoba> pickcoder: "mailbox_command" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: Optional external command that the local(8) delivery agent should use for mailbox delivery. The command is run as the recipient. Exception: command delivery for root executes with $default_user privileges.[20:09:47] <adaptr> magyar_: procmailrc is executed exclusively by procmail[20:10:07] <magyar_> adaptr, procmail is running as what user?[20:10:17] <pickcoder> read what knoba said[20:10:47] <pickcoder> here's what I have for mailbox_command[20:10:48] <pickcoder> mailbox_command = procmail -a "$EXTENSION"[20:10:48] *** MajorPayne has left #postfix[20:11:03] <magyar_> mailbox_command = procmail -Y -a $DOMAIN[20:11:27] <rob0> I have (and I recommend) the default, "mailbox_command =".[20:11:40] *** brancaleone has quit IRC[20:11:58] <rob0> I use procmail personally, but only from my .forward* files.[20:12:43] <MarcWeber> lunaphyte_: Can you give me a hint ? postfix -c /var/postfix/conf start[20:12:48] <MarcWeber> forks[20:12:58] <MarcWeber> Do I need to invoke master directly?[20:13:17] <rob0> huh?[20:13:23] <lunaphyte_> haha[20:13:40] <lunaphyte_> i haven't asked him why he wants to run master directly yet.[20:13:45] <lunaphyte_> i just told him he could.[20:13:52] <MarcWeber> lunaphyte_: because of upstart[20:13:52] <rob0> but he can't[20:14:01] <lunaphyte_> why not?[20:14:10] <rob0> TIAS :)[20:14:19] *** master_of_master has quit IRC[20:15:00] <rob0> /usr/libexec/postfix/master ; echo $?[20:15:09] <lunaphyte_> my experience w/ running it directly has been on os x, where it's started on demand by launchd and runs for 60 seconds.[20:15:22] <adaptr> and then explodes ?[20:15:35] <sysmonk> together with the kernel?[20:16:38] <lunaphyte_> it was an odd wild goose chase, but it appears to function, at least in that context.[20:18:19] *** master_of_master has joined #postfix[20:18:55] <rob0> Okay, looks like maybe it could work, just didn't work for me on the one box I have which has Postfix, but isn't running it.[20:20:01] <lunaphyte_> well, it doesn't change the fact that upstart or not, it's unlikely that that's the sensible solution.[20:21:34] <magyar_> pickcoder, permision issue. The "mailuser" folder had 750 and the users were not in the group. Had to change to 755[20:21:39] <MarcWeber> upstart 0.5 also hase expect fork.. but than I get psotfix killed by TRAP because upstart is tracing the fork..[20:22:04] *** jeffspeff2 has quit IRC[20:22:16] <magyar_> pickcoder, what is the diff between mailbox_command = procmail -a "$EXTENSION" and mailbox_command = procmail -Y -a $DOMAIN ?[20:22:31] *** jeffspeff2 has joined #postfix[20:22:36] *** rcsu has joined #postfix[20:22:56] <lunaphyte_> MarcWeber: upstart should run postfix's init script without the need for modification.[20:22:57] <rob0> I guess you're asking for pickcoder or someone else to look in "man procmail" for you?[20:23:22] <pickcoder> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#command_execution_directory[20:24:32] <magyar_> rob0, $EXTENSION $DOMAIN << not clear[20:24:45] <pickcoder> magyar_: I gave you a link for that[20:25:13] <magyar_> oops, thanks pickcoder[20:30:44] *** Blue_Mousey is now known as Muisje[20:33:45] <PcPixel> does anyont here use reject_unknown_client?[20:34:29] <pickcoder> wow I just won a new BMW.. all I have to do is reply with all of my personal information[20:34:38] <magyar_> pickcoder, "The optional recipient address extension." what would this mean in english?[20:34:52] <sysmonk> PcPixel: um, _hostname ?[20:35:14] <PcPixel> !reject_unknown_client[20:35:16] <knoba> PcPixel: Error: "reject_unknown_client" is not a valid command.[20:35:26] <PcPixel> reject_unknown_client[20:35:27] <PcPixel> Reject the request when the client IP address has no PTR (address to name) record in the DNS, or when the PTR record does not have a matching A (name to address) record. The unknown_client_reject_code parameter specifies the response code to rejected requests (default: 450).[20:35:37] <sysmonk> PcPixel: that's pre 2.3[20:35:42] <PcPixel> ah :)[20:35:53] <sysmonk> reject_unknown_client_hostname (with Postfix < 2.3: reject_unknown_client)[20:36:00] <PcPixel> im testing it out now. rather than validate the name in the greeting, it validates the name connected with[20:36:08] <PcPixel> was wondering if anyone is using that[20:36:49] <sysmonk> yeah, many use it[20:36:55] *** rootsvr has joined #postfix[20:37:04] <PcPixel> oh nice[20:37:12] <PcPixel> thats one im gonna turnon here :P[20:37:14] <adaptr> !reject_unauthenticated_sender[20:37:14] <knoba> adaptr: Error: "reject_unauthenticated_sender" is not a valid command.[20:37:22] <adaptr> should be,it was easy to type[20:37:28] <adaptr> botsmack![20:37:41] <adaptr> better prefix that with sasl_ or summin[20:37:49] <pickcoder> magyar_: it's a convention method of supplying an extension to an address.. like pickcoder+stuff at myhost dot com[20:38:04] <pickcoder> I may want stuff to go to a different mailbox than my pickcoder one[20:38:28] <sysmonk> extensions ftw[20:38:28] <sysmonk> ;)[20:38:42] <adaptr> pickcoder: and delivery distinguishes how ?[20:38:46] <rob0> $EXTENSION only applies if recipient_delimiter is set[20:39:08] <pickcoder> adaptr: I guess that's up to procmail?[20:39:13] <pickcoder> I don't use extensions..[20:39:15] *** Tykling has left #postfix[20:39:22] * sysmonk uses it[20:39:32] <adaptr> pickcoder: you implied as much[20:40:02] <pickcoder> feel free to answer correctly[20:40:37] <sysmonk> i'd only fix "different mailbox" to "different folder"[20:40:48] <sysmonk> although mailbox is possible too[20:41:38] <magyar_> pickcoder, so $DOMAIN means only @domain.com ?[20:42:03] <pickcoder> I dunno[20:42:21] *** w0rd54 has quit IRC[20:42:42] <magyar_> hmm if $EXTENTION is set. what happens if i send pickcoder+junk at myhost dot com[20:42:50] <magyar_> you will still receive it?[20:46:54] *** w0rd54 has joined #postfix[20:50:46] *** githogori has joined #postfix[20:55:21] *** rootsvr has quit IRC[21:03:22] *** riz_ has quit IRC[21:10:06] *** shinao1 has quit IRC[21:14:17] *** lawnchair has quit IRC[21:15:31] *** [uni] has joined #postfix[21:15:52] <[uni]> what is the best domain keys /dkim solution for postfix and freebsd?[21:16:05] <a13x> can i use my www ssl certificate for my mail server?[21:16:19] <sysmonk> a13x: sure[21:16:41] <sysmonk> a13x: although the domain should match (but postfix will use it even if it doesn't)[21:16:53] <shasta> sysmonk, be precise[21:17:00] <shasta> CommonName, not "domain"[21:17:01] <a13x> i have virtual hosting on my server, how would i set up postfix to use the correct certificate?[21:17:10] <sysmonk> shasta: yeah, sorry, CN[21:17:24] <sysmonk> !tls[21:17:25] <knoba> sysmonk: "tls" : short for "Transport Layer Security" (RFC2246). It adds an additional layer of encryption to protocols like SMTP, POP3 or IMAP to improve security during transmission over the internet. You can find HOWTOs on that topic on http://www.postfix.org/docs.html[21:17:27] <sysmonk> a13x: ^^[21:17:28] *** carl- has joined #postfix[21:17:51] <a13x> sysmonk, thanks[21:21:06] *** carl- has quit IRC[21:22:28] *** seekwill has quit IRC[21:24:34] <PcPixel> monk: main.cf is cleaning up nice lol[21:25:52] <sysmonk> good[21:26:01] <PcPixel> im making use of the other restriction classes[21:26:10] <PcPixel> and more use of the built in functionality[21:26:27] <PcPixel> if people stop calling me for help i might have a rework done tonight[21:26:53] *** Filbert has quit IRC[21:27:43] <sysmonk> what do they ask? :)[21:28:00] <PcPixel> "i cant print. something is wrong with my printer"[21:28:03] * PcPixel turns the printer on[21:28:08] <PcPixel> "omg im so sorry. thank you"[21:28:19] <sysmonk> oh, the usual questions then[21:28:59] <cpm> http://xkcd.com/90/[21:29:13] <sysmonk> where did i see the link already...[21:29:23] <PcPixel> yup![21:29:47] <cpm> sysmonk, in your mind[21:29:53] <cpm> it's been that kinda afternoon[21:30:01] * cpm looks for his coat[21:31:02] <PcPixel> cpm you too[21:32:20] <cpm> Just got through restoring some of the $BOSS archive maildirs, from tapes from 2 weeks back, (change out the library) because he decided he didn't like all that stuff in his iPhone maildir view, so he 'moved' them, , , on the iPhone. gone gone gone[21:32:51] <cpm> I love swapping 32 tapes to fetch a maildir, it's one of my favorite things[21:33:08] <sysmonk> yup, one of the gratest things :)[21:33:14] <PcPixel> cpm: had that happen yesterday. at 4:55pm no less.[21:33:40] <adaptr> cpm: let him spring for an Adic autoloader then, if he wants to mess with your spare time, mess with his spare change[21:34:33] <cpm> adaptr, Adic?[21:35:45] <adaptr> 2 drives, 23 tapes, 3U machine with U320 bus[21:35:48] <cpm> what's the biggest media type they support?[21:35:54] <adaptr> LTO2[21:35:59] <cpm> ah, too small,[21:36:00] <cpm> :)[21:36:11] <adaptr> the ones we have, anyway[21:36:11] <PcPixel> do you need to place "permit" as the last line in your restrictions or is it implied that its permit[21:36:18] <rcsu> then use a ADIC-100 :)[21:36:27] <adaptr> we don't have that much data really... see, there comes another afficionado[21:36:35] *** programm3rq has joined #postfix[21:37:01] <adaptr> rcsu: do you mean a Scalar 100 ? Adic being the brand and all[21:37:05] <cpm> 200 gig native?[21:37:07] <cpm> interesting[21:37:08] <rcsu> adaptr: y[21:37:08] <adaptr> yes[21:37:22] <adaptr> cpm: interesting why ? you just said it was too small[21:37:36] <programm3rq> so someone set up a .forward that points to a domain with a broken mail server. They have 200 messages in our queue destined to this connection refused mail server. Can I rewrite the destinations of these messages in our queue to his working address?[21:37:37] <cpm> I was confused[21:37:46] <adaptr> anyway, them boxes also come in 48 and 96-tape sizes[21:38:07] <rcsu> but they only have max 2 drives[21:38:11] <adaptr> not cheep, but you don't care about that, since your boss is paying[21:38:25] <adaptr> rcsu: yeah, the larger boxes are only useful for long term offline storage[21:38:26] <cpm> i'm using those vxa 320s now, which are supposed to be 160 or so native, of course, you can't stuff more than 90 or so one.[21:38:29] <adaptr> archiving[21:38:41] <adaptr> cpm: and that's because....?[21:38:51] <cpm> adaptr, because you can't.[21:38:52] <rcsu> the new tech is the LTO-3[21:38:54] <adaptr> ours are 200 native, the drives do hardware compression[21:38:57] <rcsu> 400g native[21:39:00] <adaptr> and they often reach 500+[21:39:08] <rcsu> just change the drive and you have it[21:39:12] <cpm> meaning, they fill up at 90-ish[21:39:27] <rob0> programm3rq: do the mapping in virtual_alias_maps, then postsuper -r the ones you want, then KILL THE LUSER and send my condolences to his/her family.[21:39:31] <adaptr> cpm: I think your tapes suck, or your backpu software stinks[21:39:50] <cpm> any I only have a 10 tape library, so with 1 cleaning cart, , , well, it gets dreary and tedious sometimes[21:40:02] <cpm> adaptr, no, vxa=hype[21:40:14] <adaptr> ah[21:40:19] <adaptr> I read past that[21:40:28] <cpm> it's fsck'n 4mm dat, 4mm dat == 4mm dat == 4mm dat, regardless.[21:40:28] <cpm> :)[21:40:29] <adaptr> yeah, dunno why you would use anything other than LTO at this point[21:40:43] <adaptr> except size, perhaps[21:41:03] <cpm> adaptr, I'm shopping, doing over a tbyte a week now, and that's going to get much bigger in a few months. So, yeah, I'm shopping[21:41:09] * rcsu is using Arkeia with a Scalar-24 and 2 drives resulting in good performance[21:41:40] <cpm> LTO-3 is pretty much the right thing then?[21:41:48] <rcsu> cpm: Arkeia supports multiple flows to the same tape simultanous[21:41:59] <adaptr> cpm: it's the new, so probably still pretty expensive[21:42:06] <cpm> I'd probably use Arkeia if I could make heads or tails of their licenses. So I just use bru[21:42:07] <adaptr> LTO2 is dirt cheep, tapes cost $18 or so[21:42:14] <adaptr> the drives.. not so cheep :)[21:42:38] <rcsu> cpm: linux are generally type 2 licences[21:42:52] <rcsu> cpm: ca. 700 per client/year[21:42:59] <rcsu> cpm: not very expensive[21:43:12] *** Tanguy has quit IRC[21:43:15] <rcsu> cpm: 700 EURO[21:43:20] <cpm> well with bru, I just buy seats. Done. I bought 25 seats (clients) years ago, and the annual contract costs me <$500 a year, so I can't complain about it, even though I do.[21:43:43] <rcsu> cpm: thats your decission[21:44:00] <rcsu> cpm: i only wanted to give you a hint[21:44:13] <adaptr> 700 a year not expensive ? you must be joking[21:44:23] <cpm> adaptr, that's per client.[21:44:35] <cpm> sounds pretty spendy to me.[21:44:36] <adaptr> we have commvault licenses at $400 for the win32 FS client[21:44:47] <adaptr> not per year, licenses, period[21:45:17] <adaptr> granted, commvault is a bit like the bastard stepchild of the incestuous offspring of NTBACKUP[21:45:25] <rcsu> adaptr: take a look at Legato ;)[21:45:25] <cpm> I pay tolis ~500 a year, for 25 clients, of whatever I want, as long as they don't total to over 25.[21:45:26] <adaptr> i.e., it sucks[21:45:45] <cpm> NTBACKUP! Ieeeee![21:45:46] <adaptr> cpm: you need reading glasses[21:45:52] <sysmonk> doh, only loosers make backups, real admins don't do backups![21:46:03] * sysmonk hides from all the tomatoes flying my way[21:46:11] <adaptr> no, real admins stay up 20 hours straight to repair the fileserver that was not backed up[21:46:21] <shasta> yeah, they upload all the important stuff to their FTP servers and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)[21:46:26] <cpm> adaptr, your service contracts are forever for a one time cost of $400?[21:46:50] <cpm> I don't get it.[21:47:59] <adaptr> cpm: we are talking about backup client software, what's the use of a service contract ?[21:49:01] <pickcoder> off-site storage?[21:51:10] <a13x> question: is it a good idea to force everyone to encrypt (smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt)? will users still get their mail from remote servers with this setup?[21:51:29] <programm3rq> rob0: thanks[21:51:47] *** riz_ has joined #postfix[21:52:20] <cpm> adaptr, I'm talking about backup software. And because I'm not as wise as thou, I have issues with it from time to time. And over the last decade it has changed just a bit. Therefore, a service contract is in order. client software comes in all flavors, the service license is set by client seats.[21:52:44] <MarcWeber> lunaphyte_: I've patched the postfix-script and removed the & which cased the forking. When also adding exec master exits after some seconds. I wonder why..[21:52:52] <adaptr> cpm: I see, so what do you get for the service contract ?[21:52:56] <MarcWeber> This way everything else still works as expected[21:52:57] <adaptr> i.e. what IS it ?[21:53:02] <cpm> someone to bitch at[21:53:03] <cpm> :)[21:53:13] <cpm> adaptr, it's backup software.[21:53:18] <cpm> tolis group, bru[21:53:22] <cpm> old stuff, been around a while[21:54:40] <adaptr> ah[21:54:52] <adaptr> so.. the decision to use sucky tapes was theirs ? :P[21:55:02] <cpm> adaptr, no, mine.[21:55:15] <adaptr> well, it was worth a shot[21:55:29] * rob0 would use duct tape[21:55:46] <adaptr> ducky tape ftw![21:55:59] <adaptr> it would repeat its backup history over and over again[21:56:03] <cpm> started with the old vxa, moved to the vxa-2 when it became available, then the vxa-320 on an autoloader, and so on. Remember, I've been at this same fucking place since our total on-line storage was 9gigs. TOTAL.[21:56:20] <adaptr> and you still enjoy it ?[21:56:29] <a13x> question: is it a good idea to force everyone to encrypt (smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt)? will users still get their mail from remote servers with this setup?[21:56:40] <cpm> and that's only because I built it. Before that, it was 1.2 gigs, (when I started here, 13 years ago)[21:56:52] <cpm> adaptr, no, I'm deadwood, a fraking barnacle.[21:57:00] <cpm> a13x, yes.[21:57:43] <adaptr> I hope you have secured $jobprotection BOFH style[21:58:07] <cpm> last thing I want. I dream of the day they fire me.[21:58:13] <adaptr> heh[21:58:17] *** brancaleone has joined #postfix[21:58:19] <a13x> what is the port that is used for encrypted smtp (tls)[21:58:29] <adaptr> which one would you like to use ?[21:58:41] <cpm> a13x, doesn't matter. they should use port 587 and tls shoudl be forced.[21:59:05] *** cpm has quit IRC[21:59:31] <sysmonk> ouch, 13 years[21:59:44] *** xpoint has quit IRC[22:02:55] <a13x> cpm, thanks[22:03:34] *** Zeit|awy_ has quit IRC[22:05:05] *** Joe_Wulf has joined #postfix[22:05:27] *** lawnchair has joined #postfix[22:06:30] *** pirho has joined #postfix[22:10:27] <lunaphyte_> a13x: do you plan on speaking only tls to other servers on the internet? or only with users submitting messages for delivery?[22:12:19] *** uniwiz has joined #postfix[22:14:47] *** JoeWulf has quit IRC[22:15:16] <PcPixel> is it better to use reject_unverified sender furthest down in the restrictions or sooner[22:15:29] *** hacim has left #postfix[22:15:52] <a13x> lunaphyte_:both[22:16:32] <lunaphyte_> bad idea.[22:17:22] <lunaphyte_> you will lose mail if you insist mtas on the public internet speak tls.[22:18:45] <adaptr> s/mail/all mail/[22:20:33] <uniwiz> Could someone tell me how to turn of caching for reject_unverified_recipient ?[22:20:38] <uniwiz> (or how to refresh it)[22:20:44] <lunaphyte_> PcPixel: if i used that sort of check, i'd want to only do it if i absolutely had to.[22:21:41] <lunaphyte_> adaptr: not all, but most, yes. i see around 2-3 percent of deliveries to me employing optional tls.[22:21:58] <adaptr> ah, optional[22:22:44] <lunaphyte_> (meaning they'd still be able to deliver to me if i required starttls).[22:23:37] <PcPixel> luna: last resort then.[22:24:12] <lunaphyte_> i'd consider you rude if you were probing me for addresses, btw. :)[22:24:36] <adaptr> if I were probing it wouldn't be for addresses[22:24:43] <lunaphyte_> hah![22:24:59] <PcPixel> luna: this is true.[22:25:42] <lunaphyte_> i'd probably send adaptr after you to do some probing of a different kind.[22:25:48] <PcPixel> luna: currently, its getting shorted out in my current configuration[22:25:59] <PcPixel> luna: but we were using it before & we were happy with it[22:26:03] <a13x> lunaphyte_: thanks for the info, i was suspecting this might be the case[22:26:25] <PcPixel> im trying to optimize my new config and wasnt sure if i should use it in smtpd_sender_restrictions or push it down to recipient/data_restrictions[22:26:37] <lunaphyte_> PcPixel: i'm sure you were. as is typically the case when one party is creating an inconvenience for another.[22:26:47] *** uniwiz has quit IRC[22:27:01] <lunaphyte_> as long as you're happy with it, who cares how it impact anyone else, right?[22:27:07] <PcPixel> luna: like me forcing people to get me with a valid HELO[22:27:15] <PcPixel> greet rather[22:27:19] <lunaphyte_> different.[22:27:25] <pickcoder> hm.. Parse::Syslog::Mail doesn't test under cpan[22:27:30] <PcPixel> not to the admins its not. i cant belive the flack ive taken for that[22:28:21] <lunaphyte_> btw, if you're smtpd_delay_reject, having your restrictions spread out among client/helo/etc. isn't necessary.[22:28:30] <lunaphyte_> err, if you're using, rather.[22:28:44] <PcPixel> im having the reject sent immidiately[22:29:10] <adaptr> think of all the logging you miss out on![22:29:38] <PcPixel> well that is one thing im trying to figur eout. in my testing right now i dont see myself missing anything[22:29:41] <lunaphyte_> that's fine - you might see other problems that stem from that though too.[22:29:50] <PcPixel> every error im having occur im seeing logged[22:29:57] <PcPixel> now granted im not testing for everything[22:30:13] <PcPixel> luna: it wouldnt matter. my boss has me have the server shut a person down after a single mistake.[22:30:34] <lunaphyte_> wow.[22:30:46] <PcPixel> yeah; if there is a single error in the smtp convo, boom.[22:31:03] <lunaphyte_> he'll probably change his mind when his joke of the day email gets rejected.[22:31:11] <PcPixel> *chuckle*[22:31:35] <PcPixel> like i said, ive gotten more complaints over the reject_unknown_helo_hostname from admins than the reject_unverified_sender[22:31:52] <lunaphyte_> yeah. unfortunately, that's not surprising.[22:32:09] <PcPixel> and i agree. i think the counter would be the case[22:32:11] <lunaphyte_> a good indicator that they are poor admins.[22:32:14] <PcPixel> yup[22:32:25] <adaptr> PcPixel: checking HELO in _client instead of _recipient means it will NOT log the envelope for rejected clients[22:32:51] <adaptr> and information is always good, which is why near everybody recommends doing it in _recipient, unless you have extreme performance requirements[22:32:51] <PcPixel> im checking it in _helo[22:32:53] <PcPixel> and its logging it[22:33:00] <adaptr> not the envelope[22:33:03] <adaptr> trust me on this one[22:33:23] <adaptr> HELO is step 2 in the convo[22:33:32] <PcPixel> im trying to leave _client blank[22:33:43] <adaptr> and it rejects immediately without waiting for the envelope[22:33:52] <adaptr> so it doesn't log the nevelope[22:33:56] <adaptr> *neverlope[22:33:58] <lunaphyte_> they haven't configured their mta to be honest in the first place (they probably couldn't even tell you what mta, or smtp for that matter, stands for), and they're completely unaware that your system is probing them for addresses with incomplete smtp conversations like adaptr at an spca adopt-a-thon.[22:34:00] *** jellis-real has quit IRC[22:34:02] <rob0> Um, without smtpd_delay_reject, it's impossible to reject a HELO in smtpd_client_restrictions[22:34:33] <adaptr> he says he's doing it in _helo[22:34:34] <lunaphyte_> what if i concentrate really hard and click my ruby slippers together?[22:34:35] <PcPixel> luna: oh god yes. the ones who dont get the issue keep telling me they have to redo their fireewalls etc to implement what im asking.[22:34:39] <adaptr> but that wasn't the point[22:34:39] <rob0> and with the default "smtpd_delay_reject = yes" you do log the whole envelope[22:34:55] <adaptr> lunaphyte_: was advising him on WHY it is a good idea to use _recipient[22:35:04] <adaptr> rob0: even when _recipient is empty ?[22:35:16] <PcPixel> ok, maybe ill switch the delay_reject back to yes[22:35:17] <rob0> !smtpd_delay_reject[22:35:17] <knoba> rob0: "smtpd_delay_reject" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: Wait until the RCPT TO command before evaluating $smtpd_client_restrictions, $smtpd_helo_restrictions and $smtpd_sender_restrictions.[22:35:29] <adaptr> UNTIL[22:35:33] <adaptr> so no full envelope[22:35:39] <rob0> can't be an empty RCPT with that set[22:35:43] <PcPixel> then we gather more info[22:35:58] <adaptr> rob0: then you wil need to redefine the meaning of *until*[22:36:08] <adaptr> it is never inclusive[22:36:24] <lunaphyte_> if you're being pedantic, that should probably say "until completion of the rcpt to command" - but i think the essence is there.[22:36:24] <rob0> TIAS, I am right about this.[22:36:37] <adaptr> or relearn that line as "until the RCPT TO command is *received*[22:36:38] *** rcsu has quit IRC[22:36:53] <adaptr> ..which makes more sense as "until DATA"[22:37:05] <adaptr> because that's a binary clear delimiter[22:37:07] <rob0> no it's not at DATA[22:37:13] <rob0> it is the reply to RCPT[22:37:23] <adaptr> there's nothing between RCPT TO and DATA, is there ?[22:37:24] * lunaphyte_ holds knoba down by his neck and gives him some learning.[22:37:25] <rob0> there can be many RCPTs[22:37:36] <PcPixel> lol[22:37:37] <adaptr> oh, it wiats for the first RCPT TO[22:37:42] <adaptr> okay[22:37:51] <PcPixel> the other option is to implement "problem" verified senders. i may do that[22:38:19] <lunaphyte_> PcPixel: i say you just open wide and take what you're given.[22:38:20] <PcPixel> ie: gmail, hotmail, myfirstemail[22:38:23] <adaptr> rob0: have patience, I had already forgotten what we were checking for :)[22:38:29] *** linguini has joined #postfix[22:38:32] <lunaphyte_> measles.[22:38:36] <rob0> I missed it, I just looked in[22:38:41] <PcPixel> luna: oh my[22:38:44] <adaptr> THAT's why I have everything in _recipient - sanity[22:38:58] <rob0> simplicity, is why I do it[22:38:58] <adaptr> and 4 less options to configure![22:39:01] <rob0> right[22:39:04] <adaptr> that's what I said[22:39:07] <adaptr> sanity[22:39:25] <adaptr> the only disadvantage is that you can't do funky stuff with the order of checks[22:39:31] <PcPixel> right[22:39:34] <adaptr> but I have not yet had reason to want to[22:39:37] <PcPixel> i mean the way im doing now, i dont see an issue[22:39:50] <PcPixel> i have it all lumped together now[22:39:58] <PcPixel> in my curent config, but im splitting it apart now[22:40:16] <adaptr> well, the obverse is, of course, clarity[22:40:32] <adaptr> if you have MANY checks, cplitting the stages up for clarity has merit[22:40:36] <adaptr> *spolitting[22:40:38] <adaptr> je-sus![22:40:42] *** dan has quit IRC[22:40:43] <adaptr> I give up on speling[22:41:10] <PcPixel> this is my current one: http://pastebin.com/d451c9b45[22:42:14] <adaptr> rob0: a real question (I know, wow): can virtual_alias_maps contain direct piped commands ?[22:42:22] <rob0> nope[22:42:42] <lunaphyte_> wow, you allow submission from your network to contain poor helos?[22:42:58] <PcPixel> luna: bosses choice. not mine.[22:43:00] <adaptr> all your freinds will larf at you![22:43:09] <PcPixel> lunda: trust me, you dont want to know how my internal net is run. its alarming.[22:43:09] <rob0> but, you can virtual alias to a local alias, and have the command in aliases(5)[22:43:18] <lunaphyte_> here. you take the trout now.[22:43:25] <adaptr> rob0: yes, that was my second question, thanks for doing my thinkig for me :)[22:43:45] <rob0> I'm uncanny sometimes :)[22:44:01] <PcPixel> im bascally tuning & cleaning up http://pastebin.com/d451c9b45 to make it flow better and give us some more granularity[22:44:17] <adaptr> rob0: and you can use a crap alias like johnfoo at fake dot com: local00188aXbdfoo, of course, so there are no real limits to that :)[22:44:43] <rob0> um, in aliases(5) you only use the LHS, not @domain[22:44:57] <adaptr> that would be my VA, obviously![22:45:15] <rob0> (for the alias itself, you can and SHOULD use fully-qualified addresses as the targets.)[22:45:31] <adaptr> I mean that the fact that local *aliases* usually make some sort of sense does not need to hold for something that merely exists to route to a pipe[22:45:48] <PcPixel> once i get my reworked one done ill post it & see what people think[22:45:52] <rob0> johnfoo: local00188aXbdfoo at example dot com[22:46:01] <adaptr> nope, exactly wrong[22:46:06] <adaptr> I said *VA*[22:46:40] <adaptr> local entry would be local00188aXbdfoo: | grep foo > silly.txt[22:47:09] <adaptr> since when do local aliases need domains ? they don't have domains[22:47:25] *** VaNNi has quit IRC[22:47:26] <adaptr> they might match a gazillion domains[22:47:43] <rob0> !append_at_myorigin[22:47:44] <knoba> rob0: "append_at_myorigin" : a configuration parameter in the main.cf: Append the string "@$myorigin" to mail addresses without domain information.[22:47:45] <adaptr> anything in mydestination would do[22:48:04] <adaptr> that goes for *sender* addresses AFAIK[22:48:15] <rob0> ANY address without domain.[22:48:16] <adaptr> at leats, that's the reason it's there[22:48:37] <rob0> it's a very common and hard to troubleshoot issue[22:48:59] <adaptr> if it's set OFF, a localpart-only local alias WILL match anything in mydetsination[22:49:22] *** Zeit|awy has joined #postfix[22:49:32] <rob0> People tend to assume that bare "username" is always handled by local(8), but that's not so, if $myorigin is not in $mydestination.[22:49:57] <adaptr> I know, what I mean is that the stock aliases file NEVER contains domains, so it has to work or the stock aliases file is ...stupid[22:50:09] <adaptr> and it's not, because it does work[22:50:28] <adaptr> of course, if you remove all domains from mydestinations it breaks happily[22:50:31] <rob0> well, the default $myorigin *IS* in $mydestination.[22:51:15] <adaptr> there is no requirement for $myorigin, is there ? even if there was a single domain in mydestination that was NOT myorigin, a localpart alias would still receive mail for that domain[22:51:26] <PcPixel> ok time to call it a day[22:51:39] <PcPixel> hopefully ill ahve my reworked main.cf tomorrow so people can knitpick[22:51:40] <PcPixel> :)[22:51:42] *** PcPixel has quit IRC[22:51:58] <rob0> $myorigin can only be a single domain. $mydestination can be many.[22:52:00] <adaptr> rob0: if I appear to be nitpicking - trust me, I'm not :)[22:52:07] <lunaphyte_> i'll bring my knitting needles.[22:52:34] <adaptr> I am in the design stages of a sendmail -> postfix migration for ~ 40 virtuals with million-to-one mailbox routing[22:52:37] *** VaNNi has joined #postfix[22:52:58] <adaptr> so what is possible with aliasing currently holds my interest in a big way[22:53:43] <adaptr> and the sendmail config is so sendmail specific that I can do nothing else than redesign[22:53:56] *** ploploop has joined #postfix[22:54:04] <adaptr> as sendmail doesn't seem to *care* about FQDN addys, it just lumps it all together[22:54:19] <adaptr> this is not desirable behaviour I wish to duplicate[22:54:30] <adaptr> even if I could, which I am not sure about[22:55:18] <adaptr> one thing I know: the bare migration from sendmail with procmail recipes to postfix with dedicated transports will improve performance and stability by about 1000%[22:56:05] <adaptr> (transports don't run wild; procmails do)[22:56:49] <adaptr> this box will jump to loads of 100 or more when we get spammed, which amazed me when I first discovered it[22:57:13] <rob0> Guns don't kill people; sendmail.cf's kill people.[22:57:21] <adaptr> no shit[22:57:38] <adaptr> I have the Book somewhere, but I refuse to look at it[22:57:48] <adaptr> it hurts my brain[22:58:49] <adaptr> essentially, we have a few dozen virtuals that all work the same way: accept a certain type of address, do some checking, invoke a script and do a HTTP post somehwere[22:59:37] <adaptr> no reject_unknown_recipient for us :)[22:59:41] *** AcTiVaTe has joined #postfix[23:01:55] *** alephant has joined #postfix[23:01:58] <alephant> Hi all![23:03:25] <alephant> If I list all of the "final destination" domains in ``virtual_mailbox_domains'', does that mean that only the addresses listed in ``virtual_alias_maps'' are valid for delivery? My goal is to have NO delivery to POSIX accounts, only to those users defined in the virtual aliases file.[23:04:43] *** brancaleone has quit IRC[23:04:47] *** ploploop is now known as brancaleone[23:04:55] <adaptr> then empty $mydestination[23:05:10] <adaptr> or leave local_recipient_maps empty[23:05:35] <adaptr> !address_class_readme[23:05:35] <knoba> adaptr: Error: "address_class_readme" is not a valid command.[23:05:40] <adaptr> !address_classes ?[23:05:41] <knoba> adaptr: Error: "address_classes" is not a valid command.[23:05:46] <adaptr> dumbot[23:05:51] <alephant> Oh! Can I leave local_recipient_maps empty and get by with just an /etc/aliases, without the virtual_alias_domains map?[23:05:57] * alephant snickers.[23:05:59] <adaptr> s/he needs a serious understanding Humans upgrade[23:06:07] <adaptr> alephant: no[23:06:08] <alephant> bots are overrated.[23:06:18] <pickcoder> well that was simple.. nice list of bounces with recipient and error message[23:06:22] <adaptr> alephant: aliases is ONLY evaluated for local recipients[23:06:26] <alephant> oh[23:06:54] <adaptr> if you don't receive local mail, all your aliases must be in VAMaps[23:06:59] <alephant> ok[23:07:04] * alephant reads the manpages...[23:07:10] <adaptr> but you usually don't want to go that far, sice you have to have some system aliases[23:07:27] <adaptr> empty $mydestination is usually the simplest way[23:07:40] <adaptr> (local_recip used only for resolving postmaster etc.)[23:08:06] <alephant> but I want *all* address to be mapped to remote users -- root, postmaster etc. should all go "somewhere else".[23:09:30] <alephant> so if localhost and all of the foo.tld domains are in virtual_alias_domains, and mydestination is empty, then if it ain't in v_a_maps, it's getting rejected.[23:09:32] <alephant> Correct?[23:09:34] <adaptr> yes, understood - but SMTP requires that they be reachable *unqualified*[23:09:56] <adaptr> even when I connect on IP and MAIL TO: postmaster[23:10:01] <adaptr> it MUST arrive[23:10:05] <adaptr> that's the RFC[23:10:05] <alephant> sure[23:10:23] <adaptr> if you disable local aliases, localpart-only addresses will never be valid[23:10:35] <alephant> oh[23:10:35] <alephant> OH[23:10:41] <adaptr> oh wait, if you set $myorigin to the mailername (hostname of the mailbox) you can append that[23:10:50] <alephant> no[23:10:52] <adaptr> just don't put any of the domains in $mydestination[23:10:59] <alephant> myorigin will be domain.tld[23:11:11] <adaptr> it can't[23:11:21] <alephant> as per RFC discussion above[23:11:22] <adaptr> you don't want to do that[23:11:27] <adaptr> use the machine FQDN[23:11:29] <alephant> can't[23:11:33] <alephant> er[23:11:42] <alephant> nvm[23:11:43] <alephant> I suck[23:11:46] <adaptr> then it'll be tricky to also use that as a virtual[23:11:50] <pickcoder> why not remap the locals using alias_map[23:11:52] <adaptr> just do it the normal way :)[23:11:55] <alephant> desired configuration:[23:12:12] <adaptr> pickcoder: you can go from local_recip to a VAMaps entry ? that is cool[23:12:29] <pickcoder> you can pull from nis or ldap with it[23:12:44] <pickcoder> /etc/aliases is just a standard hash[23:13:06] <adaptr> ah yes, and they can point anywhere, even back into the rewrite pipe[23:13:31] <adaptr> postmaster -> admin at virtual dot com[23:13:53] <adaptr> and that gets re-processed by VAMaps and delivered (presumably)[23:14:03] <alephant> MX record for otherdomain.tld; myorigin = fqdn; mydestination = hostname, [ip.addr]; virtual_alias_domains = otherdomain.tld; v_a_m & aliases list postmaster et.al. and the few special addresses I want. Any problems with that?[23:14:05] <adaptr> I tend to only think in the reversed way[23:14:42] <adaptr> alephant: try it out, I would say :)[23:14:50] <alephant> heh[23:15:32] <alephant> But the RFCs require bob@hostname to work, even if bob at hostname dot domain.tld doesn't?[23:15:38] <adaptr> it's not really that complicated, except that an all-virtual box is an edge case[23:15:40] <alephant> er, postmaster[23:16:09] <alephant> so postmaster@hostname must work? or only postmaster?[23:16:19] <adaptr> the RFCs require postmaster@* to work[23:16:20] *** seekwill has joined #postfix[23:16:30] <adaptr> anything that ends up at your box and has that localpart[23:16:35] <alephant> right[23:16:37] <alephant> thanks a ton[23:17:28] *** alephant has quit IRC[23:22:54] *** neoeinstein has quit IRC[23:27:56] *** neoeinstein has joined #postfix[23:28:13] *** Haris has quit IRC[23:28:20] *** Haris__ has joined #postfix[23:30:35] *** FuzzyOne has joined #postfix[23:31:53] *** FuzzyOne has left #postfix[23:33:51] <pickcoder> actually I think you can use any of the database formats for alias_maps[23:34:17] <pickcoder> it's nice when you have to hack a perl module's test script in order to get it to install...[23:34:17] *** j_s has quit IRC[23:39:30] *** gcleric has joined #postfix[23:39:39] *** gcleric has quit IRC[23:40:22] *** gcleric has joined #postfix[23:51:12] *** dan_ has joined #postfix[23:57:37] *** alienbrain has joined #postfix