On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 08:39:36PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
> What's up with this?
>
> imb@toshi:/home/imb> sudo portupgrade -aR
> make: "/usr/ports/mail/postfix/Makefile" line 92: warning: Couldn't read
> shell's output for "/usr/bin/grep -
What's up with this?
imb@toshi:/home/imb> sudo portupgrade -aR
make: "/usr/ports/mail/postfix/Makefile" line 92: warning: Couldn't read
shell's output for "/usr/bin/grep -m 1 '^purgestat'
/etc/mail/mailer.conf || true"
imb
___
On 02/25/2012 06:34, Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
>>> subject when trying to start
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
>> subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
>> 2.8 both
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> Il 25 febbraio 2012 07:15, Doug Barton ha scritto:
>> On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
>>> subject when trying to start
Il 25 febbraio 2012 07:15, Doug Barton ha scritto:
> On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
>> subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
>> 2.8 both give t
On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
> subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
> 2.8 both give the same error.
Backing out r232055 fixed this.
--
It&#x
I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
2.8 both give the same error.
Any ideas?
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Hi Terry,
first thanks for your answer.
> It's very common, for shell prompts which include the host name, or
> for some shells that are too stupid to realize that the prompt string
> does not require the host name, to do a DNS query in order to get the
> name of the machine they are running on.
Andy Hilker wrote:
> i am using current. Similar problems *without* postfix. Login via ssh
> results in print motd, but nothing more.
> Login on local console results in nothing after pressing enter on
> username.
I think you have a different problem than the one that started this
t
Hi Tom,
not all the time, sorry about my bad english :) Sometimes, mostly
once a day... see another mail to list from me, sent a few hours
ago. This mail describes the problems more detailed.
This night i will change RAM to see if it was faulty. But i do not
think so.
Andy
You (Tom) wrote:
>
using current. Similar problems *without* postfix. Login via ssh
> results in print motd, but nothing more.
> Login on local console results in nothing after pressing enter on
> username.
>
> Andy
>
> You (Tom) wrote:
> >
> > Usually if networking locks up like this, y
Hi,
i am using current. Similar problems *without* postfix. Login via ssh
results in print motd, but nothing more.
Login on local console results in nothing after pressing enter on
username.
Andy
You (Tom) wrote:
>
> Usually if networking locks up like this, you should check th
the machines
to -current. 5.1-p10 just has security fixes, not bug fixes.
Tom
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Niklas Saers Mailinglistaccount wrote:
> Hi,
> are anyone familiar with conditions where postfix may bring a 5.1-p10
> server to a halt, making the server accept incoming ports (such
Hi,
i have similar problems described in .
Two differnet Servers:
A) PIII 1 GHz Dual, Scsi, 1 GB RAM
B) XEON 3.06 GHz Dual, Adaptec SCSI Raid, 4 GB RAM
A runs fine, B crashes once a day between 12 and 24 hours uptime.
B has Apache (2.0.47) with SSL, now i will log incoming https
connections, m
On 29 Oct 2003, Niklas Saers Mailinglistaccount wrote:
> are anyone familiar with conditions where postfix may bring a 5.1-p10
> server to a halt, making the server accept incoming ports (such as 22) but
> serve nothing, making getty(8) become non-respondent (pressing enter
> does
> Hi,
> are anyone familiar with conditions where postfix may bring a 5.1-p10
> server to a halt, making the server accept incoming ports (such as 22) but
> serve nothing, making getty(8) become non-respondent (pressing enter
> doesn't give any feedback) and making the server
Hi,
are anyone familiar with conditions where postfix may bring a 5.1-p10
server to a halt, making the server accept incoming ports (such as 22) but
serve nothing, making getty(8) become non-respondent (pressing enter
doesn't give any feedback) and making the server ignore ctrl-alt-del etc?
At 8:08 PM -0500 2003/01/18, Kutulu wrote:
I was just concerned that some useful task that used to occur nightly may
now not be occurring, and if so, what I could do to make it occur again. I
didn't see anything to even indicate that postfix has a host status cache,
meaning the opti
e sendmail is being used, but not the host
> status cache.
I'm not so much worried about the noise in my logs (I can just turn it off,
which has also been pointed out to me a few times already). There's already
a number of other daily periodic options postfix has you turn off, so that&
< said:
> I upgraded my system last night to the latest -CURRENT and noticed a change
> in the daily mail cleanup. Unfortunately, I'm not running sendmail, so now
> I'm getting:
If you can come up with a good (silent) way to detect whether
`sendmail -bH' is unsupported, I'd be happy to add that
: fatal: unsupported: -bH
kutulu> Does anyone know if there's a similar option in postfix, or should
kutulu> I just back out the changes to those parts of the daily scripts?
Put this in /etc/periodic.conf:
daily_clean_hoststat_enable="no"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
x27;s a similar option in postfix, or should I just
back out the changes to those parts of the daily scripts?
--Mike
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Do we have anyone working on the VM system that could look at this?
- Forwarded message from Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: Postfix users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema)
To: Postfix u
> > You are reflecting messages back to a mailing list with
> > thousands of subscribers.
> >
> > Cut it out.
> >
> > -- Terry
>
> Peter has applied the Big Hammer of Death to the problem for now, so
> it should be stopping soon if not already.
Thanks Peter
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send ma
Nate Williams wrote:
> > > You are reflecting messages back to a mailing list with
> > > thousands of subscribers.
> > >
> > > Cut it out.
> > Peter has applied the Big Hammer of Death to the problem for now, so
> > it should be stopping soon if not already.
> Thanks Peter
Peter is my hero.
On 12-Feb-02 Terry Lambert wrote:
> You are reflecting messages back to a mailing list with
> thousands of subscribers.
>
> Cut it out.
>
> -- Terry
Peter has applied the Big Hammer of Death to the problem for now, so it should
be stopping soon if not already.
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTEC
You are reflecting messages back to a mailing list with
thousands of subscribers.
Cut it out.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
The testing I've done shows that postfix is buggy in two ways:
- The main() in inet_addr_local.c assumes that the addresses in
addr_list and mask_list are sockaddrs, but this is only true
when using IPv6. This only affects testing with -DTEST.
- inet_addr_local() calls inet_addr_list_a
From the keyboard of Hellmuth Michaelis:
> Perhaps i can find out more later as i now have to tell my kids
> a goodnight story
How good that i did that - on today´s current postfix runs again
Anyway, the time i intended to work on -current and commit some bits to
it was once
On Friday 07 September 2001 09:54 am, Michael Harnois wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:03:00 +0200 (METDST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hellmuth Michaelis)
said:
> > After the reboot i tried postfix:
> >
> > Sep 7 16:19:49 hmscrap postfix[372]: fatal: could not find any
&
From the keyboard of Michael Harnois:
> > Sep 7 16:19:49 hmscrap postfix[372]: fatal: could not find any
> > active network interfaces
>
> Do you have a way to try dhclient? As I said, that failed with a
> similar error for me.
I´ll see if i can try.
In the mea
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:03:00 +0200 (METDST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hellmuth Michaelis) said:
> After the reboot i tried postfix:
> Sep 7 16:19:49 hmscrap postfix[372]: fatal: could not find any
> active network interfaces
Do you have a way to try dhclient? As I said, that fa
Ok, today in the morning i checked a fresh current tree out to a different
machine which just got done with a make build/installworld, new kernel and
a mergemaster run.
Before i did that, i updated the postfix port, compiled it and verified it
works (this was on a current as of August 1st
From the keyboard of Hellmuth Michaelis:
> From the keyboard of Giorgos Keramidas:
>
> > Hmm ..
> >
> > thought i should update my current machine 2 hours ago, cvs´d a tree, made
> > and installed it. Reboot. Got:
> >
> > Sep 6 21:33:48 bert postfi
From the keyboard of Giorgos Keramidas:
> Hmm ..
>
> thought i should update my current machine 2 hours ago, cvs´d a tree, made
> and installed it. Reboot. Got:
>
> Sep 6 21:33:48 bert postfix[15838]: fatal: could not find any active network
interfaces
>ifconfig out
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 03:49:38 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ifconfig output please ?
On the bad kernel, an ifconfig shows that the network card for my
outside interface has an ipaddr of 0.0.0.0. When I try to run dhclient
manually on the interface it says "dc0: not found
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:46:15 +0200 (METDST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hellmuth Michaelis) said:
> Sep 6 21:33:48 bert postfix[15838]: fatal: could not find any
> active network interfaces
I'm having a similar experience here.
--
Michael D. Harnois bilocational b
From: Hellmuth Michaelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: postfix fails to start
Date: Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 09:46:15PM +0200
> Hmm ..
>
> thought i should update my current machine 2 hours ago, cvs´d a tree, made
> and installed it. Reboot. Got:
>
> Sep 6 21:33:48 be
Hmm ..
thought i should update my current machine 2 hours ago, cvs´d a tree, made
and installed it. Reboot. Got:
Sep 6 21:33:48 bert postfix[15838]: fatal: could not find any active network
interfaces
With the previous binary, a 4.3 CD binary, a then newly compiled postfix and
postfix
Bill Fumerola wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:34:42PM -0700, dannyman wrote:
>
> > I am a Postfix weenie. I don't care what the "default" MTA that comes with
> > FreeBSD is, but I like that 4.x is better at giving you a choice in the
> > matter.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:34:42PM -0700, dannyman wrote:
> I am a Postfix weenie. I don't care what the "default" MTA that comes with
> FreeBSD is, but I like that 4.x is better at giving you a choice in the
> matter. If someone wanted to maintain Postfix in the Fre
vely maintained by a member
> of the actual sendmail team. That's far more than can be said for other
> parts of the contrib tree and if you'd like to help out I'm sure there
> are other areas that need more attention. I'm save you the frustration
> now, please, don'
on Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:58:19 +0200, Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
+ [snip]
+
+ At 9:22 PM + 2000/10/8, attila! wrote:
+
+ > 20001001 is the most current which Wietse is now running and
+ > stating that it is 'production quality'. Obviously, I will
+ > port 20001001 t
At 9:22 PM + 2000/10/8, attila! wrote:
> I look at 'snapshots' philosophically; if I willingly track
> FreeBSD-5.0-current, I am obviously accustomed to the risks
> therein.
Understood. I just wanted to point out the philosophical
differenc
nly running STABLE right now for lack of machines) does
> > this job. Have you looked at /etc/mail/mailer.conf? The sendmail
> > binary in /usr/sbin has no relation to sendmail - it's the
> > mailwrapper, which is a good concept.
>
> What needs to be considered, in m
less
flamefests that spawn from every discussion concerning the MTA in the
base system, I'm sure you would have a mailbox full of flames by now.
If you go look through the archives you will find countless threads
waging the sendmail vs. qmail vs. postfix vs. exim vs. "i wrote this
simple ma
etc/mail/mailer.conf? The sendmail
> binary in /usr/sbin has no relation to sendmail - it's the
> mailwrapper, which is a good concept.
What needs to be considered, in maintaining postfix for the
'conventional' interface of sendmail (as of 8.10) is:
/usr/bi
on 8 Oct 2000 13:14:14 +0200, Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded:
+ At 7:02 AM + 2000/10/8, attila! wrote:
+
+ > (a) pick a directory and 'tar -zxf snapshot-2531.tar.gz'
+ >
+ > (b) 'cd snapshot-2531'
+
+ Three things:
+
+ 1. You don
At 2:31 PM -0500 2000/10/8, Will Andrews wrote:
> Heh.. Wietse uses so-called ``experimental'' Postfix on his systems.
> And there are *LOTS* of people who think that whatever Wietse runs is
> good enough for them.. so this statement had better be hased on personal
>
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:14:14PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> 2. You mention the use of snapshots, but this is not
> recommended practice for sites new to postfix. Instead,
> start with the most recent "release
At 7:02 AM + 2000/10/8, attila! wrote:
> (a) pick a directory and 'tar -zxf snapshot-2531.tar.gz'
>
> (b) 'cd snapshot-2531'
Three things:
1. You don't tell people where to get the postfix software.
'make world' may not
> compile sendmail, but it restores the symbolic link during
> 'make installworld':
>
> /usr/sbin/sendmail -> /usr/sbin/mailcap
>
> which blows away postfix' 'sendmail' interface.
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
*
POSTFIX should be included in /usr/src/contrib
freebsd.org and freefall use it...
time for an easy choice
*
(1) 28 Sep: tried
I just noticed that after my make installworld my postfix install was
"busted" ... I found out that apparently there has been installed a new
binary called mailwrapper that replaced my existing sendmail-symlinks
(created by postfix ports' make replace command) with new symlinks to
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:30:18 +0100, Blaz Zupan wrote:
> If you had taken at look at the PR yourself, you'd notice that it was ME,
> who submited that PR :)
I did take a look at it, that's how I know about it. You don't seriously
expect me to notice the name of each originator for each PR I look
> Have a look at the PR database, specifically at ports/10710. I haven't
> checked it out myself. Perhaps you'd like to try it out and send
> feedback to the freebsd-ports mailing list, which is a much more
> appropriate list through which to address this sort of issue.
If you had taken at look at
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:22:42 +0100, Blaz Zupan wrote:
> We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
> go ahead and have a look at it?
Hi Blaz,
Have a look at the PR database, specifically at ports/10710. I haven't
checked it out myself. Perhaps y
> Please wait a few days if you insist on a port, Wietse will release a new
> version with quite a number of new features. In any case, a Postfix port
> will not be very difficult to do.
Actually, I already had a go at it. A first version of the port can be
downloaded
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Blaz Zupan wrote:
> We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
> go ahead and have a look at it?
FWIW, I installed Postfix on an experimental box here (since it's
still in 'Beta'). I've been happy with its perfor
[ redirected to ports ]
According to Blaz Zupan:
> We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
> go ahead and have a look at it?
Please wait a few days if you insist on a port, Wietse will release a new
version with quite a number of new features. In
> I hate to roll up old threads, but it seems like nothing has come out of
> the Postfix vs. sendmail debate on this list.
> We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
> go ahead and have a look at it?
Postfix is working great for me. I repla
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> Blaz Zupan wrote:
> > I hate to roll up old threads, but it seems like nothing has come out of
> > the Postfix vs. sendmail debate on this list.
> >
> > We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a p
Blaz Zupan wrote:
> I hate to roll up old threads, but it seems like nothing has come out of
> the Postfix vs. sendmail debate on this list.
>
> We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
> go ahead and have a look at it?
I would be very plea
I hate to roll up old threads, but it seems like nothing has come out of
the Postfix vs. sendmail debate on this list.
We don't even have a Postfix port. Has anybody created a port or should I
go ahead and have a look at it?
Blaz Zupan, b...@medinet.si, http://home.amis.net/blaz
Medinet
65 matches
Mail list logo
