set maximal_queue_lifetime per domain
Amit Jhawar
Is there any way I can set the "maximal_queue_lifetime" parameter per
domain..
For ex. I have two domains ABC & DEF. I want all mails to ABC to be tried
for 2 days, to DEF for 4 days & for others for 5 days (default). Has anyone
tried to do this before?
Thanks in advance,
Amit
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@postfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
Wietse Venema
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:27:15PM -0600, Russell Mosemann wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Amit Jhawar wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any way I can set the "maximal_queue_lifetime" parameter per
> > > domain..
> > >
> > > For ex. I have two domains ABC & DEF. I want all mails to ABC to be tried
> > > for 2 days, to DEF for 4 days & for others for 5 days (default). Has anyone
> > > tried to do this before?
>
> To accomplish it you would have to be running multiple instances of
> Postfix, one for each desired lifetime, and use transports to direct
> mail to certain domains by way of the correct instance of Postfix. In
> short it will be a pain.
After all recipients of a message are tried by the Postfix mail
delivery agents, the queue manager would have to examine the queue
file again. For each left-over recipient, it would have to look
the domains up in a table with per-domain expiration times.
Alternatively, every individual delivery agent could do the table
lookup when a recipient is found to be undeliverable, but that
would increase the number of files kept open by Postfix and
that would also slow down the normal deliveries.
Personally, I think it just isn't worth the trouble.
Wietse
Clifton Royston
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Amit Jhawar wrote:
>
> > Is there any way I can set the "maximal_queue_lifetime" parameter per
> > domain..
> >
> > For ex. I have two domains ABC & DEF. I want all mails to ABC to be tried
> > for 2 days, to DEF for 4 days & for others for 5 days (default). Has anyone
> > tried to do this before?
Postfix does not support this so it requires a complex workaround.
To accomplish it you would have to be running multiple instances of
Postfix, one for each desired lifetime, and use transports to direct
mail to certain domains by way of the correct instance of Postfix. In
short it will be a pain.
> Write a program that uses mailq to periodically scan the queue (e.g., once
> an hour). If an entry is there for ABC and it is more than 2 days old,
> issue a "postsuper -d" to delete it. With that method, you can customize
> down to the second how long email for each domain (or sender or recipient)
> stays in the queue.
That is the wrong thing to do with it. Mail which is undeliverable
for N days should be bounced to the sender as undeliverable (as postfix
would do when it reached its maximum lifetime) not silently destroyed.
I am not aware of any easy hack for this.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- clif...@lava.net
"As for yourself, ... I am well disposed to hope you may hitherto have
escaped many Vices of your Country. But by what I have gathered from
your own Relation, and the Answers I have with much Pain wringed and
extorted from you, I cannot but conclude the Bulk of your Natives to be
the most pernicious Race of little odious Vermin that Nature ever
suffered to crawl upon the Surface of the Earth."
- Jonathan Swift, _Gulliver's Travels_
Bill Campbell
>Bill Campbell:
...
>> This is one of the things that smail-3.2 does nicely, that I miss in Postfix.
>
>Don't receive mail with bogus senders in the first place!
Ah for a perfect world :-).
Unfortunately we're still running a mixture of MTAs, not all of which are a
good as postfix. We have postfix configured to reject anything with MX or
A records for the domain in the MAIL FROM, but that doesn't deal with non-
deliverable addresses in those domains. Nor does it take care of cases
where the MX or A host refuses connections, or there's no route to the
host.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``If the future navigation system [for interactive networked services on
the NII] looks like something from Microsoft, it will never work.''
(Chairman of Walt Disney Television & Telecommunications)
Wietse Venema
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:43:24PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> ...
> > That is the wrong thing to do with it. Mail which is undeliverable
> >for N days should be bounced to the sender as undeliverable (as postfix
> >would do when it reached its maximum lifetime) not silently destroyed.
> >I am not aware of any easy hack for this.
>
> bounces resulting from spam with bogus Sender information, it's something
> that really needs to be done.
>
> This is one of the things that smail-3.2 does nicely, that I miss in Postfix.
Don't receive mail with bogus senders in the first place!
Wietse
Vivek Khera
WV> Don't receive mail with bogus senders in the first place!
Easier said than done. I refuse mail from non-existent sender
domains, but that doesn't mean they accept mail. Here's a snippet of
my mail backlog from content filter rejections:
117913E2C 3725 Fri Oct 25 14:40:47 MAILER-DAEMON
(connect to eweb12.ehost.com[65.212.149.65]: Connection refused)
nob...@eweb12.ehost.com
10C6F3EB9 3828 Mon Oct 28 18:30:36 MAILER-DAEMON
(Name service error for alphamarketing.net: Host not found, try again)
do_not...@alphamarketing.net
7F16E3E30 17229 Tue Oct 29 09:53:40 MAILER-DAEMON
(connect to stdin-bs-01.mydailyoffers.com[66.240.153.14]: Connection refused)
3-169-kcilink.com?kh...@stderr.mydailyoffers.com
I just set 2bounce notifications to be dropped, so it isn't a big
deal.
Juri Haberland
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Juri Haberland wrote:
>
> > Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >
> > > Use dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
> >
> > Doesn't help much. I get 0 (zero!) rejects due to dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
>
> Are you using something like (from a recent postfix snapshot)
>
> reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
Uhm, no, should I?
(me quickly checking archives/www.rfc.ignorant.org)
Doh, and I thought I could use it like any other RBL...
Thanks,
Juri
--
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them,
then each of us still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them,
then each of us now has two ideas.
Juri Haberland
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:01:58AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > >>>>> "WV" == Wietse Venema writes:
> >
> > WV> Don't receive mail with bogus senders in the first place!
> >
> > Easier said than done. I refuse mail from non-existent sender
> > domains, but that doesn't mean they accept mail. Here's a snippet of
> > my mail backlog from content filter rejections:
> Use dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
Doesn't help much. I get 0 (zero!) rejects due to dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
If you have senders that are known to not accept bounces just put the in
a file call e.g. 'sender_access' and add
"check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access"
to your smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Cheers,
Ralf Hildebrandt
> > Use dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
>
> Doesn't help much. I get 0 (zero!) rejects due to dsn.rfc-ignorant.org!
Echt? We get TONS of them. And lots of spammers don't accept bounces
as well!
> If you have senders that are known to not accept bounces just put the in
> a file call e.g. 'sender_access' and add
> "check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access"
> to your smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Jep.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt Ralf.Hil...@charite.de
Postfix Tips: http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/ Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
An Emacs reference mug is what I want. It would hold ten gallons of
coffee. -- Steve VanDevender
And, no doubt, have a lid that could only be removed with an obscure
finger combination requiring both hands. (Ctrl-Alt-Meta-X
gimme-the-damn-coffee) -- William Beegle
Ralf Hildebrandt
> Uhm, no, should I?
> (me quickly checking archives/www.rfc.ignorant.org)
>
> Doh, and I thought I could use it like any other RBL...
:)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt Ralf.Hil...@charite.de
Postfix Tips: http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/ Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
"I'm not under the alcofluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am.
It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get."