On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 7:57 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Chihurumnaya Ibiam via Mailman-users writes:
>
> About disabling dovecot:
>
>  > I don't plan on shutting down the host anytime soon, so hopefully,
>  > I remember to the next time it restarts.
>
> systemctl stop dovecot
> systemctl disable dovecot
> systemctl daemon-reload
>
> should do the trick without rebooting the host.
>

That did, showed it was removed from
/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/.

>
>  > Yes, postfix_lmtp table is set in transport_maps, virtual_mailbox_maps,
>  > relay_domains, local_recipient_maps.
>
> Do you have lists.sugarlabs.org in $virtual_mailbox_domains?  As Mark
> points out, virtual mailboxes make life more complicated.  Also, I
> don't think postfix_lmtp should be in $relay_domains (that table
> contains addresses which won't match domains being looked up).  If
> anything it should be postfix_domains.
>

No, I don't have virtual_mailbox_domains set, I didn't need to.

Yes, postfix_lmtp isn't in relay_domains, that was my fault, it's
postfix_domains.


>
>  > > It's problematic for Mailman because that means that *all* local mail
>  > > will be delivered to Mailman, which will reject it if it's not
>  > > list-related.
>
>  > I'm totally fine with this because that's why we setup the host,
>
> I'm sorry, that was unclear.  By "list-related", I meant that "the key
> Postfix is trying to match is an exact match for a key in the
> postfix_lmtp table".  Because these are hash tables, it is Postfix's
> responsibility to strip "+extension" from the recipient address before
> presenting the stripped address to the table for matching -- the table
> can't do it.
>
> Specifically, this applies to the confirmation and VERP cookies that
> may be attached to addresses for various reasons.
>

Now I understand why it's a problem.

Going by your earlier assumption that perhaps the same thing doesn't happen
for mailbox_transport,
how would I use that as a fallback in such cases?


>
>  > a mailing list, which should work just fine but then it seems
>  > they need to connect to this host.
>
>  >  165968 Feb  5 04:48:46 lists postfix/smtp[1941010]: connect to
>  >    weblate.sugarlabs.org[2001:5a8:601:f::214]:25: Connection refused
>  >  165969 Feb  5 04:48:46 lists postfix/smtp[1941010]: B785D1A897F: to=
>  >    <[email protected]>, relay=none, delay=17323,
>  >    delays=17323/0.02/0.33/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to
>  >    weblate.sugarlabs.org[2001:5a8:601:f::214]:25: Connection refused)
>
> This is a problem at weblate.sugarlabs.org.  Is it supposed to be
> receiving mail?  I don't think that this is an authentication problem
> (SASL authentication takes place after connection), although if
> "weblate" expects authenticated TLS that might be the problem.  So
> "lists" needs to be whitelisted (eg in $mynetworks) at weblate (I
> suppose Postfix is also the MTA at "weblate"?)  If you have only the
> toplevel domain sugarlabs.org whitelisted, you may need to set another
> parameter to automatically include subdomains such as lists.sugarlabs.org.
>
>
No, weblate isn't supposed to receive email. It runs a service that sends
emails just like MM3.
Yes, postfix is also the MTA at weblate.

I can include subdomains, but I don't see a reason for doing so at the
moment.

One thing I had done to remediate the error - which didn't do anything from
the logs - is add  check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/client_access
in smtpd_client_restrictions.


>  > No, I'm not running mailman as root, it's run as mailman.
>  > Seeing as that's the case, would I still need to change lmtp_port?
>
> Yes, as far as I know.  That's because by convention ports < 1024 can
> only bound to programs running as root (enforced by the kernel).  I
> don't understand how Mailman is receiving mail configured to listen on
> port 24.  This may have something to do with dovecot running.
>
> However I really don't understand the lsof output, because you present
> logs that indicate that Mailman is processing mail for lists, but
> nothing was listening or connected on port 24.  You also say Postorius
> and HyperKitty are running, but nothing showed up on port 8000, which
> is where they would be listening.  Maybe I got the lsof options wrong,
> but it did find Postgres and Mailman's REST API.
>

 Me configuring lmtp_port to 24 earlier did interfere with Mailman because
I had dovecot
running on the same port at the time, after disabling dovecot and
commenting out lmtp_port, I noticed
Mailman listening on 8024, postfix_lmtp also showed this.

I don't know why Postorious and Hyperkitty didn't show up at the time, but
I just ran lsof and this is the output;
$ lsof -i [email protected] -i 'TCP@[::1]' | grep 24
python3   1983955  mailman   26u  IPv4 181237054      0t0  TCP
localhost:8024 (LISTEN)
uwsgi     1985531  mailman    9u  IPv4 181247623      0t0  TCP
localhost:8000 (LISTEN)
uwsgi     1985547  mailman    9u  IPv4 181247623      0t0  TCP
localhost:8000 (LISTEN)
uwsgi     1985548  mailman    9u  IPv4 181247623      0t0  TCP
localhost:8000 (LISTEN)
mailman-w 1985554  mailman   44u  IPv6 185803776      0t0  TCP
localhost:60244->localhost:postgresql (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  2458591 postgres    9u  IPv6 185580185      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql->localhost:43102 (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  2458595 postgres    9u  IPv6 185581026      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql->localhost:43140 (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  2458607 postgres    9u  IPv6 185579124      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql->localhost:43234 (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  2482767 postgres    9u  IPv6 185805780      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql->localhost:60244 (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  2482831 postgres    9u  IPv6 185807057      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql->localhost:56188 (ESTABLISHED)
postgres  3568035 postgres    5u  IPv6 160224851      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql (LISTEN)
postgres  3568035 postgres    6u  IPv4 160224852      0t0  TCP
localhost:postgresql (LISTEN)

Which shows the expected ports being listened on, I'll assume the issue
with Postorious was probably because the mailmanweb service stopped at some
point
as I tried to restart it and that was basically running uwsgi, it didn't
run and when I looked further I noticed uwsgi was running so
there was no need to do this, as that's what it was trying to do.


>  > It did get it working, I can see mail being sent in the logs.
>  > I sent a ping to the systems list just to get delivery confirmation
>  > and I'm yet to get a response.
>
> I don't have an idea what's going on yet.  The mail you see being sent
> in the logs, is that to a gmail address?  Or is it a sugarlabs.org
> address?  (Both of these seem to be problematic at the moment.)
>

It was to a sugarlabs.org address, I've been able to receive mail owner
messages to my inbox, I configured a gmail address
as the admin for Mailman suite, which indicates that mail delivery works as
expected.


>  > >  > > What does "lsof -i @127.0.0.1 -i '@[::1]' | grep 24" output?
>  > >
>  > >  > python3   1592922  mailman   27u  IPv4 177685024      0t0  TCP
>  > > localhost:8001 (LISTEN)
>  > >  > python3   1592949  mailman   27u  IPv4 177685024      0t0  TCP
>  > > localhost:8001 (LISTEN)
>  > >  > python3   1592950  mailman   27u  IPv4 177685024      0t0  TCP
>  > > localhost:8001 (LISTEN)
>  > >
>  > > The above are Mailman (actually, a gunicorn application) listening for
>  > > connections to its REST API.  These are HTTP listeners used by
>  > > Postorius and HyperKitty (I guess those aren't running?), not for
> email.
>  > >
>  >
>  > Postorius and HyperKitty are running.
>
> But they should show up as several Python applications running as
> mailman, listening or connected on port 8000.  But they're not here.
> Try "lsof -i :8000 -i :24".
>

I agree, I've explained a probable cause above. They now show up in the
lsof output.


>  > This is one that's consistent with Dovecot in the logs;
>
> This is Postfix sending a non-delivery notification about A26F71A8977:
>  >  157323 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists postfix/bounce[1587396]: A26F71A8977:
> sender non-delivery notification: AC7381A8978
>
> The <> tells us that this is the nondelivery notification referred to
> as AC7381A8978 so there's no return address to send to:
>  >  157324 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists postfix/qmgr[1593314]: AC7381A8978:
> from=<>, size=3129, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> postfix/local looks at mailbox_transport and sends it to lmtp, where
> dovecot is listening;
>

mailbox_transport currently doesn't have a value.


>  >  157325 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists postfix/local[1593315]: AC7381A8978:
> passing <[email protected]> to transport=lmtp
>  >  157326 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists dovecot: lmtp(1600482): Connect from
> 127.0.0.1
>
> Postfix is done with A26F71A8977, and pops it off the queue:
>  >  157327 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists postfix/qmgr[1593314]: A26F71A8977:
> removed
>
> dovecot denies knowing about a local user named "mailman", rejecting it:
>

Yes, this probably because I haven't properly configured user lookup on
dovecot.


>  >  157328 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists postfix/lmtp[1593316]: AC7381A8978:
>  >    to=<[email protected]>, relay=localhost[127.0.0.1]:24,
> delay=0.04,
>  >    delays=0.02/0/0/0.01, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host
> localhost[127.0.0.1]
>  >    said: 550 5.1.1 <[email protected]> User doesn't exist:
>  >    [email protected] (in reply to RCPT TO command))
>
> dovecot says "I'm done here":
>  >  157329 Feb  4 12:27:02 lists dovecot: lmtp(1600482): Disconnect from
> 127.0.0.1: Logged out (state=READY)
>
>  > Which we've established that mailman doesn't know how to deliver to
> local
>  > users.
>
> So that's a bounce from dovecot.  I don't know enough about dovecot or
> your configuration of dovecot to guess what happened.
>
>
At the moment, I've disabled the service and have no configurations for it.
I commented out my earlier configs before disabling it.


>  > Could be, doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment so I won't worry
> about
>  > it.
>
> The Message-ID is syntactically well-formed.  I'm worried about side
> effects from the hostname not being the FQDN in mail protocols.  As
> long as all the configurations for Postfix use the FQDN (Postfix is
> smart enough to abbreviate when that's useful), there shouldn't be any
> problems like that.
>

All the configurations that are supposed to contain the FQDN does;
mydestination, mydomain, myhostname.

Am I missing any?


>  > Yes, earlier when I set it up I had set the port for Mailman to use as
> 465.
>
> OK.
>
>
> --
> GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization)
> Sirius Open Source    https://www.siriusopensource.com/
> Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
>

-- 

Ibiam Chihurumnaya
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Mailman-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/
Archived at: 
https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3FPZQJHYXDYVJC7CGZNSZDEHXY7IWTPO/

This message sent to [email protected]

Reply via email to