Yegor Gorshkov wrote:

> Hello, world.
>
> Is there a way to copy (relay) every message received by the PostFix
> server
> to some other server, while still processing "local" copy of the email
> as usual?
>
> The idea behind it is simple - I need to test new email server under
> real load,
> while production server should still run 24x7.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thank you
> Yegor Gorshkov
>
check out the config option always_bcc.

Yegor Gorshkov a écrit :
> Hello, world.
>
> Is there a way to copy (relay) every message received by the PostFix server
> to some other server, while still processing "local" copy of the email
> as usual?
>
> The idea behind it is simple - I need to test new email server under
> real load,
> while production server should still run 24x7.
>
> Any ideas?
>

you could use virtual aliases. something like:

foo@... foo@..., foo@...

then tranport other.example to the test server.


if you only want to test the load, you can use bcc features.

In all cases, a delivery error will generate a bounce to the sender. you
may use soft_bounce on the test server to minimize this.

Sergio Ferreira a écrit :
> When I set:
>
> SMTPD.... =
>
> reject_...
> reject_...
> reject_...
>
> As I understood It is recommended to finish the sequence with "permit"
> option, right?

A final permit isn't required since that's the default.

rules are applied in the order they are found. try writing your site
policy in english (or native lang if you prefer, but writing'em in
english will help if you need to discuss them). then implement these rules.

Questions to ask yourself:
- which clients are allowed to (freely) relay through your server?
- do you want to enforce smtp auth for outbound mail?
- do you want to restrict some outbound senders?
- what level of hello filtering to implement?
- what level of address requirements to impose?
- which dnsbl's do you want to use?
- do you want greylisting?
...

Tanner Postert:
> I keep getting an error message when sending to this certain domain.
>
> Here is the error message in the maillog:
>
> Nov 23 17:55:01 tempe-email-01 postfix/smtp[2986]: 407686D8F0: to=<
> user@...>, relay=none, delay=2, status=deferred (Host or domain name
> not found. Name service error for name=domain.com type=MX: Host not found,
> try again)
>
> but if i do: host -t mx domain.com

http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#no_chroot

If that is not the problem, you goofed with the access permissions
of / /etc /etc/nsswitch.conf /etc/resolv.conf or some other critical
file or directory.

	 Wietse

Hi folks,
I really don't know it it's a postfix issue but it looks like it. I
did setup FreeBSD R6 machine, installed SquirrelMail and a plugin for
auto-responding. However, even the .forward file and .vacation.msg
are correctly created, the autoreply message is never sent. This is
an excerpt from maillog:

Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/cleanup[18643]: B73C81C088F: message-
id=<20051201193058.A3CBD1C0860@...>
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: B73C81C088F:
from=<rcerny@...>, size=780, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/smtpd[18642]: disconnect from unknown
[127.0.0.1]
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/local[18644]: B73C81C088F:
to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
to command: /usr/bin/vacation -d cerny)
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: B73C81C088F: removed
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin amavis[18433]: (18433-03) Passed CLEAN, LOCAL
[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1] <rcerny@...> -> <cerny@...>,
Message-ID: <20051201193058.A3CBD1C0860@...>, mail_id:
ZhUqwGISslXq, Hits: -, 403 ms
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/smtp[18640]: A3CBD1C0860:
to=<cerny@...>, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1], delay=22,
status=sent (250 2.6.0 Ok, id=18433-03, from MTA([127.0.0.1]:10025):
250 Ok: queued as B73C81C088F)
Dec  1 20:31:20 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: A3CBD1C0860: removed

Does anyone have an idea what could be wrong?

Thanks
Robert

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:28:48 +0100
mouss <usebsd@...> wrote:

> Tanner Postert a écrit :
> > I keep getting an error message when sending to this certain domain.
> >
> > Here is the error message in the maillog:
> >
> > Nov 23 17:55:01 tempe-email-01 postfix/smtp[2986]: 407686D8F0:
> > to=<user@... <mailto:user@...>>, relay=none, delay=2,
> > status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. Name service error
> > for name=domain.com <http://domain.com> type=MX: Host not found, try
> > again)
> >
> > but if i do: host -t mx domain.com <http://domain.com>
> > i get:
> > domain.com <http://domain.com> mail is handled by 10
> [snip]
> >
> > I don't quite understand how i can be getting proper dns reponses
> > manually, but postfix can't resolve them, and it's only for this
> > domain (that i know of) other external emails work just fine.
>
> chroot issue?
>


Unlikely if it only affects one domain. Sounds more like a badly
configured DNS server somewhere. We had a case like that on the list
about 6 months ago.

Of course if he had let us know the real domain that was causing trouble
we could have checked it out.

--
Due to excessive spam as a result of archiving of this list I only
accept mail through the list server.

Tanner Postert a écrit :
> None of my processes in master.cf <http://master.cf> are chrooted.

Then share yor infos: post your master.cf.
also see Wietse post (check the permissions)

Tanner Postert a écrit :
> I keep getting an error message when sending to this certain domain.
>
> Here is the error message in the maillog:
>
> Nov 23 17:55:01 tempe-email-01 postfix/smtp[2986]: 407686D8F0:
> to=<user@... <mailto:user@...>>, relay=none, delay=2,
> status=deferred (Host or domain name not found. Name service error for
> name=domain.com <http://domain.com> type=MX: Host not found, try again)
>
> but if i do: host -t mx domain.com <http://domain.com>
> i get:
> domain.com <http://domain.com> mail is handled by 10
[snip]
>
> I don't quite understand how i can be getting proper dns reponses
> manually, but postfix can't resolve them, and it's only for this domain
> (that i know of) other external emails work just fine.

chroot issue?

>
> Also, i see the emails getting deferred, but my users never get a
> response that their email didn't go through. Shouldn't they get a bounce
> notice of some sort?

you may configure warnings (after N hours).

Tanner Postert:
> double checked the master.cf and nothing is chrooted.
>
> i don't think it's a permissions error since i can send external mail to my
> gmail account or other domains, it just seems this one domain is giving me a
> problem.
>
> i just tried a simple telnet on port 25 to the 10 MX record, and it did take
> QUITE some time for it to respond, is it possible that it is timing out?

What is the domain name.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:49:32PM +0700, Alexander Kolesnikoff wrote:
> Mon Nov 28 19:16, Wietse Venema <wietse@...> wrote:
> > Alexander Kolesnikoff:
> > >
> > >   Can postfix transfer messages with "Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary" ?
> >
> > Does Postfix announce BINARYMIME in the SMTP server EHLO response?
> >
>
>   No, of course. I'm just have some trouble while M$-Exchange send
> replication messages through postfix.
>
>   Thank you for your answer.

Why Postfix involved with your replication?  And what kind of
replication?  SMTP domain replication is not recommended vs. DCE/RPC.

---
Chris Covington
IT
Plus One Health Management
75 Maiden Lane Suite 801
NY, NY 10038
646-312-6269
http://www.plusoneactive.com

!DSPAM:1,438f58dd289284328210510!

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:11:10 -0600
Kelly Sauke <ksauke@...> wrote:

> How about some examples of these other options?

I'm currently playing with dspam, which can now in version 3.6 communicate
with clamAV too. It's a bit of a black magic and undeterministic
(statistics and all that ...), but can get very reliable for users'
specific mail patterns. Also 10x faster than Amavis/SA and once configured,
requires almost no administration.


--

Jure Peèar
http://jure.pecar.org/

At 12:25 PM 12/1/2005, Sergio Ferreira wrote:
>EHLO List,
>
>I am finishing my SMTP setup restrictions and remains
>one question that I
>will explain following.
>
>When I set:
>
>SMTPD.... =
>
>reject_...
>reject_...
>reject_...
>
>As I understood It is recommended to finish the
>sequence with "permit"
>option, right?

permit is the default action at the end of each
smtpd_*_restrictions list.  It's not necessary to put
it there explicitly, but some people like to see it.


>So far, seems to be fine for me, but when I mix the
>things how should I use
>"permit" and "reject" options?

Depends on what you want to do.  The first rule to
match something wins.


--
Noel Jones

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:45:54AM -0200, Sergio Ferreira wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I still setting SPAM stuffs at my setup, now I have one doubt about some
> third parts tools. I have known about integration of Postfix and Clamav,
> Spamassassim too, instead of Postfix + Clamav + Amavis + Spamassassin.
> Anyone had experienced boths cases for help me with the advantages and the
> disadvantages between them?
> Without Amavis my server will be trustworth too? My question is about should
> I use Amavis or not? Some people says It is more easy to manage these things
> with Amavis, It is true?
>
> Any conserning will be very wellcome to make things more clear.

I'd like to weigh in here.  We used SpamAssassin/amavisd-new for about 2
or 3 years and the results were acceptable, the setup was fairly
straightforward and the overhead was low.  It's a good beginner's setup
that will take care of 90-95% of your spam problems.  The problem with SA
(and most commercial products, but I digress) is primarily that it's a
one-size-fits-all solution, and secondarily: it assumes English as the
primary language of all spam, it has a lot network test latency, it
primarily adapts through new versions containing new rulesets, etc.
(For instance, with our population medicine, nutrition & health
enhancement are integral parts of every day business, not spam!)
Network tests help SA a little in this regard, but in many ways it's a
static system that waits for the next release to be more effective, and
its efficacy drops over time until the next version, etc.

In the last few months we've preserved amavisd-new to do virus scanning /
attachment blocking, removed SpamAssassin, and we've added DSPAM which
does the anti-spam.  DSPAM is fairly difficult to setup and understand
(the documentation is sparse) but it's very effective and adaptive.
DSPAM is also more of a resource hog: we have a 400MB or so global MySQL
database compared to SA's small-footprint client installation.  This
database contains 30,000 or so messages in the spam corpus and 40,000
or so in the ham corpus.  The message scanning times are faster, but
the resources required are much higher.  With all that said, it's an
excellent solution.  It's highly accurate (we're at 98.87% right now,
this constantly gets better): The database is specially-tailored to
our users' email patterns, and our users continually update it themselves
by forwarding false positives and negatives to training addresses.
So if you have the patience, skills and hardware required to use
DSPAM, go for it!

---
Chris Covington
IT
Plus One Health Management
75 Maiden Lane Suite 801
NY, NY 10038
646-312-6269
http://www.plusoneactive.com

!DSPAM:1,438f6162289285153766755!

Robert Cerny:
> to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
> to command: /usr/bin/vacation -d cerny)


man vacation says:

        -d     Send error/debug messages to stderr instead of  syslog.   Other-
               wise,  fatal  errors,  such  as  calling vacation with incorrect
               arguments, or with non-existent logins, are logged in the system
               log file, using syslog(8).  This should only be used on the com-
               mand line, not in your .forward file.

It's really easier to debug when errors are logged.

	 Wietse

On Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 14:43 CET,
      James Lay <jlay@...> wrote:

> So I googled around....searched the postfix mailing list
> archives...didn't find what I'm looking for, so I thought I'd ask here.
>
> Currently I run postfix with spamassassin with a postfixfilter in my
> master file and the below as the postfixfilter script file:
>
> #!/bin/bash
> /usr/bin/spamc -U /var/spool/spamfilter/spamd | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i
> "$@" exit $?

That's not robust. What do you think happens if spamc or sendmail
cannot be invoked? FILTER_README contains a more robust example.

[...]

--
Magnus Bäck
magnus@...

On 1.12.2005, at 21:49, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Robert Cerny:
>> to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
>> to command: /usr/bin/vacation -d cerny)
>
>
> man vacation says:
>
>        -d     Send error/debug messages to stderr instead of
> syslog.   Other-
>               wise,  fatal  errors,  such  as  calling vacation
> with incorrect
>               arguments, or with non-existent logins, are logged in
> the system
>               log file, using syslog(8).  This should only be used
> on the com-
>               mand line, not in your .forward file.
>
> It's really easier to debug when errors are logged.
>
>  Wietse

Thanks for your reply,
but it doesn't make a difference imho:

Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/smtpd[20090]: connect from unknown
[127.0.0.1]
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/smtpd[20090]: 86E4A1C085F:
client=unknown[127.0.0.1]
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/cleanup[20081]: 86E4A1C085F: message-
id=<20051201210733.83EE91C085D@...>
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 86E4A1C085F:
from=<rcerny@...>, size=804, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/smtpd[20090]: disconnect from unknown
[127.0.0.1]
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin amavis[19757]: (19757-05) Passed CLEAN, LOCAL
[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1] <rcerny@...> -> <cerny@...>,
Message-ID: <20051201210733.83EE91C085D@...>, mail_id:
o7-m4CGzr2QN, Hits: -, 491 ms
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/smtp[20088]: 83EE91C085D:
to=<cerny@...>, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1], delay=24,
status=sent (250 2.6.0 Ok, id=19757-05, from MTA([127.0.0.1]:10025):
250 Ok: queued as 86E4A1C085F)
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 83EE91C085D: removed
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/local[20091]: 86E4A1C085F:
to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
to command: /usr/bin/vacation cerny)
Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 86E4A1C085F: removed

Or did I understand it wrong?

Robert

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:07:04PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
> Covington, Chris wrote:
>
> >this constantly gets better): The database is specially-tailored to
> >our users' email patterns, and our users continually update it themselves
> >by forwarding false positives and negatives to training addresses.
> >So if you have the patience, skills and hardware required to use
> >DSPAM, go for it!
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but a system that requires users to
> continue to handle spam (if not actually read it) *and* to learn another
>  interface to train the application seems like little more than a mail
> sorting program to me.

You don't have to use DSPAM's quarantine interface.  We use Exchange's
"Junk E-mail" folder which is built-in: X-DSPAM-Result: Spam will move
a message to this folder (and all X-DSPAM* headers are removed before
they hit the DSPAM servers so this can't be spoofed).  The "Junk E-mail"
folder's contents are automatically expired after 30 days.  This
requires Exchange event sinks, BTW.  Users need to forward mistakes
to training addresses.

> I want to reject spam immediately, during the SMTP conversation. I'm
> doing that now on a low-volume site, running SA in a before-queue
> content filter using spampd. While it may be possible to do the same
> with dspam, SA bootstraps its bayesian filter with a multitude of rules,
> so no user intervention is required. For the little bit of spam that
> gets through, I can run sa-learn, or, even better, add a local rule that
> will improve the bayesian filter after a few rejections.

That might work for a smaller site, but it doesn't scale well and it
places the administrative burden on you.

---
Chris Covington
IT
Plus One Health Management
75 Maiden Lane Suite 801
NY, NY 10038
646-312-6269
http://www.plusoneactive.com

!DSPAM:1,438f69b3289288246520239!

Robert Cerny:
> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/local[20091]: 86E4A1C085F:
> to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
> to command: /usr/bin/vacation cerny)
> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 86E4A1C085F: removed
>
> Or did I understand it wrong?

In that case vacation

- Either reports errors elsewhere

- Reports no error.

Do you actually realize that vacation does not deliver mail?

	 Wietse

On 1.12.2005, at 22:26, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Robert Cerny:
>> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/local[20091]: 86E4A1C085F:
>> to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
>> to command: /usr/bin/vacation cerny)
>> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 86E4A1C085F: removed
>>
>> Or did I understand it wrong?
>
> In that case vacation
>
> - Either reports errors elsewhere
>
> - Reports no error.
>
> Do you actually realize that vacation does not deliver mail?
>
>  Wietse

Ehh,
sorry?

Robert

Covington, Chris wrote:

> this constantly gets better): The database is specially-tailored to
> our users' email patterns, and our users continually update it themselves
> by forwarding false positives and negatives to training addresses.
> So if you have the patience, skills and hardware required to use
> DSPAM, go for it!

Maybe I'm missing something, but a system that requires users to
continue to handle spam (if not actually read it) *and* to learn another
   interface to train the application seems like little more than a mail
sorting program to me.

I want to reject spam immediately, during the SMTP conversation. I'm
doing that now on a low-volume site, running SA in a before-queue
content filter using spampd. While it may be possible to do the same
with dspam, SA bootstraps its bayesian filter with a multitude of rules,
so no user intervention is required. For the little bit of spam that
gets through, I can run sa-learn, or, even better, add a local rule that
will improve the bayesian filter after a few rejections.

Robert Cerny:
>
> On 1.12.2005, at 22:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Robert Cerny:
> >> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/local[20091]: 86E4A1C085F:
> >> to=<cerny@...>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (delivered
> >> to command: /usr/bin/vacation cerny)
> >> Dec  1 22:07:57 marvin postfix/qmgr[4469]: 86E4A1C085F: removed
> >>
> >> Or did I understand it wrong?
> >
> > In that case vacation
> >
> > - Either reports errors elsewhere
> >
> > - Reports no error.
> >
> > Do you actually realize that vacation does not deliver mail?
> >
> >  Wietse
>
> Ehh,
> sorry?

Vacation is an autoresponder; it will send a message only once
and then make a record in its database file to not send again to
the same address for some configurable amount of time.

The database is initialized with "vacation -i". To examine the
database, you may use

     postmap -s .vacation | less

This will show the addresses and the (binary) time stamps. Once
an address is in there Postfix won't autoreply to it for a while.

	 Wietse

Robert Felber wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:07:04PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
>
>>now on a low-volume site, running SA in a before-queue content filter using
>>spampd.
>
>
> Out of curiousity, how does dspam handle multirecipient mail?
>
>
>>RCPT TO:<foo@...>
>>RCPT TO:<foo2@...>
>
> < OK
>
>>DATA
>
> < OK
>
>>headers:
>>
>>body
>>.
>
> < 4xx|5xx
>
> What, if foo2 doesn't want to use dspam? In that case, he would lose the mail
> still. Or am I wrong?

I don't know about dspam, I'm using SpamAssassin *globally* in a
before-queue content filter. Yes, it rejects the entire message for all
recipients, but that's the point. My users don't even know their mail is
being filtered (and will complain about getting as many as 5-10 spam
messages in a week!). I use a lot of different spam-fighting techniques,
but *all* of them are apparent to the sender (rejections, no
backscatter), so I will hear about any problems that occur (rare, but it
does happen).

I used to quarantine everything, inspect it, then pass on the ham, but
that was a *true* administrative nightmare. This approach adds
complexity to configuration, and lets me enjoy my vacations a little
more. :)

Don't overlook Chris' point about scalability, which cuts both ways. I'm
not an ISP, and support most of my clients down to their desktops, so
eliminating spam and viruses can save me support calls down the line.
But in a large general purpose population, per-user spam categorization
may be mandatory.

I've sucessfully built a virtual Postfix email server which reads the users
logins and passwords, quota limits, etc, from a database (Postfix really
excels at this kind of thing).
Users can now manage their domains on their own through a Web-interface.
I've just built a script to enable autoresponders (yes i know autoresponders
suck but some clients just want them and that's it) which follow the
configuration of Postfix in the manner discussed at:

http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#autoreplies

It works great. Thing is, I would like to know which measures can i take to
detect mailing lists so an autoreply (say a vacation message or something)
is never sent to a mailing list. I've googled for it, and came up with the
following:

- Don't send autoreplies to emails with an envelope sender that begins with
"owner-"
- Look for a "Precedence" header in the email, if it's set to "bulk", "list"
ou "junk" then don't send autoreplies to it.

The thing is, as i'm using the following layout:

/etc/postfix/master.cf:
     # =============================================================
     # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command
     #               (yes)   (yes)   (yes)   (never) (100)
     # =============================================================
     autoreply unix  -       n       n       -       -       pipe
         flags= user=nobody argv=/path/to/autoreply $sender $mailbox
my autoreply script only gets access to the sender email address and the
mailbox (which is the recipient email address, as i'm using virtual). Is
there any way to pass along the email headers to the script so it could
check the "Precedence" header? Thanks in advance.

----------------------------------------
Elaconta Webmaster
----------------------------------------

Hi Mouss,

>>>>>> I still setting SPAM stuffs at my setup, now I have one
>>>>>doubt about
>>>>>> some third parts tools. I have known about integration
>>>>>of Postfix and
>>>>>> Clamav, Spamassassim too, instead of Postfix + Clamav +
>>>>>Amavis + Spamassassin.
>>>>>> Anyone had experienced boths cases for help me with the
>>>>>advantages and
>>>>>> the disadvantages between them?
>>>>>> Without Amavis my server will be trustworth too? My
>>>>>question is about
>>>>>> should I use Amavis or not? Some people says It is more
>>>>>easy to manage
>>>>>> these things with Amavis, It is true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any conserning will be very wellcome to make things more clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The first question is which filtering engine you want to
>>>>>use. some choices:
>>>>>
>>>>>- spamassassin. widely used. resource intensive. maintenance burden

I was thinking about to use Spamassassin. It worth or just is the mostly
used?




>>>>>- dspam. bayesian (with some variants). doc is not very clear.

This one I doesn´t heard about It, but when I see problems with
documentation then I´d rather not even try. :-/



>>>>>- crm114, bogofilter, ....

Bogofilter... I read a little bit about, but I wasn´t able to choose for It.
It´s similar to spamassassin? It is easy to setup and manage?

>>>>>
>>>>>so there are a lot of choices. some people daisy chain
>>>>>multiple engines.

Unless It is very recommended, I prefer only one engine. I belive It is easy
to fix problems and administering :-)



>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>amavisd-new:
>>>>>- good interface to spamassassin. no more fork per mail +
>>>>>works in gateway mode (so can filter relayed mail if you want)
>>>>>- can block bad attachments
>>>>>- compatible with many anti-virus solutions
>>>>>- support for policies ("policy banks")

It is well documented and easy to setup? I intending to adopt It.

Bye,

Sergio

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:07:04PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
> now on a low-volume site, running SA in a before-queue content filter using
> spampd.

Out of curiousity, how does dspam handle multirecipient mail?

> RCPT TO:<foo@...>
> RCPT TO:<foo2@...>
< OK
> DATA
< OK
> headers:
>
> body
> .
< 4xx|5xx

What, if foo2 doesn't want to use dspam? In that case, he would lose the mail
still. Or am I wrong?


--
     Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
     Munich, Germany

Wietse:
> What is the domain name.

Tanner Postert:
> the domain is bibbyfinancial.com. i checked permissions on nsswitch and
> resolve.conf, both are 644, so everyone has read access.

There is no problem with Postfix, but there are problems with the
domain.  I tried an email probe and it worked right the first time.

For example, Postfix needed 10 seconds for DNS and SMTP
connection set-up which looks problematic.

I noticed that the first bibbyfinancial.com query took several
seconds. They seem to have a problem.

Their DNS is messed up; they have two NS records at the root
servers but the bibbyfinancial.com zone file lists three.

See also:

http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=bibbyfinancial.com

	 Wietse

Logging:
========

Dec  1 17:48:58 spike postfix/pickup[47739]: F18DCBC0D9: uid=1001 from=<wietse>
Dec  1 17:48:58 spike postfix/cleanup[48583]: F18DCBC0D9:
message-id=<20051201224857.F18DCBC0D9@...>
Dec  1 17:48:58 spike postfix/qmgr[23364]: F18DCBC0D9:
from=<wietse@...>, size=304, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec  1 17:49:09 spike postfix/smtp[48584]: F18DCBC0D9:
to=<postmaster@...>,
relay=bibbyfinancial.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net[216.183.119.101]:25, delay=12,
delays=0.17/0.03/11/0.89, dsn=2.0.0, status=deliverable (250
postmaster@... ok (normal))
Dec  1 17:49:09 spike postfix/qmgr[23364]: F18DCBC0D9: removed

Delivery report from "sendmail -bv postmaster@...":
==================================================================

Return-Path: <>
X-Original-To: wietse@...
Delivered-To: wietse@...
Received: by spike.porcupine.org (Postfix)
	 id CF0C0BC16F; Thu,  1 Dec 2005 17:49:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 17:49:09 -0500 (EST)
From: MAILER-DAEMON@... (Mail Delivery System)
Subject: Mail Delivery Status Report
To: wietse@...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
	 boundary="F18DCBC0D9.1133477349/spike.porcupine.org"
Message-Id: <20051201224909.CF0C0BC16F@...>
Status: OR

This is a MIME-encapsulated message.

--F18DCBC0D9.1133477349/spike.porcupine.org
Content-Description: Notification
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

This is the Postfix program at host spike.porcupine.org.

Enclosed is the mail delivery report that you requested.

                    The Postfix program

<postmaster@...>: delivery via
     bibbyfinancial.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net[216.183.119.101]:25: 250
     postmaster@... ok (normal)

--F18DCBC0D9.1133477349/spike.porcupine.org
Content-Description: Delivery report
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; spike.porcupine.org
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: F18DCBC0D9
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; wietse@...
Arrival-Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 17:48:57 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; postmaster@...
Action: deliverable
Status: 2.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; bibbyfinancial.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 250 postmaster@... ok (normal)

--F18DCBC0D9.1133477349/spike.porcupine.org
Content-Description: Message Headers
Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers

Received: by spike.porcupine.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	 id F18DCBC0D9; Thu,  1 Dec 2005 17:48:57 -0500 (EST)
From: wietse@...
Subject: probe
To: postmaster@...
Message-Id: <20051201224857.F18DCBC0D9@...>
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 17:48:57 -0500 (EST)

--F18DCBC0D9.1133477349/spike.porcupine.org--