Hi all,
I have a strange problem with postfix on a CentOS 5.1 (fully patched). Every time that postfix sends a message to public smtp servers generates an autoresponse mail to sender about delay ...
Somebody knows how can I fix this??
carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I have a strange problem with postfix on a CentOS 5.1 (fully patched). Every time that postfix sends a message to public smtp servers generates an autoresponse mail to sender about delay ...
Somebody knows how can I fix this??
Show logs.
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I have a strange problem with postfix on a CentOS 5.1 (fully patched). Every time that postfix sends a message to public smtp servers generates an autoresponse mail to sender about delay ...
Somebody knows how can I fix this??
Show logs.
Ralph
It doesn't appears any error on maillog about this. Only postfix sends a message to sender's that informs his message will be delivered ...
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
carlopmart wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
carlopmart wrote:
I have a strange problem with postfix on a CentOS 5.1 (fully patched). Every time that postfix sends a message to public smtp servers generates an autoresponse mail to sender about delay ...
Somebody knows how can I fix this??
Show logs.
It doesn't appears any error on maillog about this. Only postfix sends a message to sender's that informs his message will be delivered ...
Are you sure that it is postfix sending that message? This should be visible from the *logs*
Also show postconf -n
Ralph
Hi,
I see old post on the web discouraging the use of XFS on top of LVM, mostly seems to be driver problems .. in any case it was not reassuring.
I was wondering, with current drivers and kernels (CentOS5), if they are any issue doing so.
I have no real need for LVM, I am just use to it and occasionally found it useful.
It is my first time building a 12T partition and for my usage I think XFS seems to be the way to go. It will mostly be use for uncompress audio storage.
Any comments will be more than welcome,
cheers, alain
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Alain Terriault, Mr. alain.terriault@mcgill.ca wrote:
Any comments will be more than welcome,
The biggest issue with XFS has been the 4kstack limitation on the x86 kernel. If you're using x86_64, you should have no real problem with xfs on top of LVM, because the x86_64 kernel uses 8K stacks instead. Also, keep in mind that grub in centos doesn't play well with partitions larger than 2TB, so the ideal solution would be to keep the OS on ext3, and create a /data/ xfs partition area with your 12TB of audio.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
If you're using x86_64, you should have no real problem with xfs on top of LVM, because the x86_64 kernel uses 8K stacks instead. Also, keep in mind that grub in centos doesn't play well with partitions larger than 2TB, so the ideal solution would be to keep the OS on ext3, and create a /data/ xfs partition area with your 12TB
We have had exactly this configuration (well, except it's only 7.5TB) running for six or seven months now, and have not had any problems with it.
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Alain Terriault, Mr. wrote:
Hi,
I see old post on the web discouraging the use of XFS on top of LVM, mostly seems to be driver problems .. in any case it was not reassuring.
I was wondering, with current drivers and kernels (CentOS5), if they are any issue doing so.
I have no real need for LVM, I am just use to it and occasionally found it useful.
It is my first time building a 12T partition and for my usage I think XFS seems to be the way to go. It will mostly be use for uncompress audio storage.
Any comments will be more than welcome,
sure, here you go:
1) don't hijack threads, use "new", not "reply" when starting a thread
2) we have many servers with XFS on LVM, works fine
3) as Jim said, use x86_64 due to the 4K stack issue with i386. Also use the kmod-xfs from extras with the normal kernel, don't rebuild or change your kernel for no reason.
4) depending on what you have under you may see performance some performance drops with LVM (compared to say a partition-table of GPT type) due to the fact that LVM splits stuff into page size chunks (4K typically).
5) when setting read-ahead (important for seq. read performance) then remember to set it on the lv device, not the pv device.
/Peter
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
carlopmart wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
carlopmart wrote:
I have a strange problem with postfix on a CentOS 5.1 (fully patched). Every time that postfix sends a message to public smtp servers generates an autoresponse mail to sender about delay ...
Somebody knows how can I fix this??
Show logs.
It doesn't appears any error on maillog about this. Only postfix sends a message to sender's that informs his message will be delivered ...
Are you sure that it is postfix sending that message? This should be visible from the *logs*
Also show postconf -n
Ralph
Ralph, yes I am sure. I can't find any entry in log file about this problem. All mails appears as delivered. Postfix sends this message:
Mail Delivery System MAILER-DAEMON@domain.com 05/16/08 1:23 >>>
This is the mail system at host mail.domain.com.
Your message was successfully delivered to the destination(s) listed below. If the message was delivered to mailbox you will receive no further notifications. Otherwise you may still receive notifications of mail delivery errors from other systems.
The mail system
user@domain2.com: delivery via localhost[127.0.0.1]:10025: 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as D61DDEC962
My postconf:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases command_directory = /usr/sbin config_directory = /etc/postfix content_filter = imss:localhost:10025 daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix default_process_limit = 200 disable_vrfy_command = yes header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks invalid_hostname_reject_code = 554 local_recipient_maps = $alias_maps, ldap:ldapsource mail_owner = postfix mailbox_command = mailbox_size_limit = 0 mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq.postfix message_size_limit = 12582912 multi_recipient_bounce_reject_code = 554 mydestination = $myhostname, $myorigin, localhost.localdomain, localhost, $transport_maps mydomain = domain.com myhostname = mail.domain.com mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.1.4/32, 192.168.5.1/32 myorigin = $mydomain newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases.postfix non_fqdn_reject_code = 554 queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix recipient_delimiter = + relay_domains = $mydestination relay_domains_reject_code = 554 sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix setgid_group = postdrop smtpd_banner = Primary ESMTP v3.0 smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/access, reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain smtpd_data_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_pipelining smtpd_helo_required = yes smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain, reject_rbl_client multi.uribl.com, reject_rbl_client dsn.rfc-ignorant.org, reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net, reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org, reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net, reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, reject_rbl_client ix.dnsbl.manitu.net, reject_rbl_client combined.rbl.msrbl.net, reject_rbl_client rabl.nuclearelephant.com, reject_rbl_client pbl.spamhaus.org, reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_rhsbl_sender rhsbl.sorbs.net, reject_rbl_client maps_rbl_domains strict_rfc821_envelopes = yes transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport unknown_address_reject_code = 554 unknown_client_reject_code = 554 unknown_hostname_reject_code = 554 unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 554 unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_alias_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_alias_reject_code = 554 unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code = 554 unverified_recipient_reject_code = 554 unverified_sender_reject_code = 554
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
carlopmart wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Are you sure that it is postfix sending that message? This should be visible from the *logs*
Ralph, yes I am sure. I can't find any entry in log file about this problem. All mails appears as delivered. Postfix sends this message:
Mail Delivery System MAILER-DAEMON@domain.com 05/16/08 1:23 >>>
This is the mail system at host mail.domain.com.
Your message was successfully delivered to the destination(s) listed below. If the message was delivered to mailbox you will receive no further notifications. Otherwise you may still receive notifications of mail delivery errors from other systems.
Looks like the client wants to have a delivery notfication and postfix answers it. This seems to be a client configuration "problem" if it only happens with one client.
Cheers,
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
carlopmart wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Are you sure that it is postfix sending that message? This should be visible from the *logs*
Ralph, yes I am sure. I can't find any entry in log file about this problem. All mails appears as delivered. Postfix sends this message:
Mail Delivery System MAILER-DAEMON@domain.com 05/16/08 1:23 >>>
This is the mail system at host mail.domain.com.
Your message was successfully delivered to the destination(s) listed below. If the message was delivered to mailbox you will receive no further notifications. Otherwise you may still receive notifications of mail delivery errors from other systems.
Looks like the client wants to have a delivery notfication and postfix answers it. This seems to be a client configuration "problem" if it only happens with one client.
Cheers,
Ralph
No, this problems occurs on several clients ... And not all are windows clients: my clients are linux, windows and mac.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
carlopmart wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Looks like the client wants to have a delivery notfication and postfix answers it. This seems to be a client configuration "problem" if it only happens with one client.
No, this problems occurs on several clients ... And not all are windows clients: my clients are linux, windows and mac.
This happens when the clients want a "delivery report" - please see the mail client configuration.
Ralph
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM, carlopmart carlopmart@gmail.com wrote:
user@domain2.com: delivery via localhost[127.0.0.1]:10025: 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as D61DDEC962
content_filter = imss:localhost:10025
Did you check if this could be related to whatever is running on port 10025? How is your master.cf setup?
Filipe
-
Alain Terriault, Mr. -
Bart Schaefer -
carlopmart -
Filipe Brandenburger -
Jim Perrin -
Peter Kjellstrom -
Ralph Angenendt