Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: deferred mail expire limit

Expand Messages
  • Magnus Bäck
    On Sunday, January 01, 2006 at 23:15 CET, ... Is the message a bounce? bounce_queue_lifetime. Else maximal_queue_lifetime. ... The server gives a permanent
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
      On Sunday, January 01, 2006 at 23:15 CET,
      LeVA <leva@...> wrote:

      > I have a mail which always gets deferred. Now postfix waits 5 days
      > before sending me the "Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender" mail, and
      > deleting the mail from the queue. With which option can I adjust this
      > 5 day limit, the 'bounce_queue_lifetime', or with the
      > 'maximal_queue_lifetime' (or with another maybe :)?

      Is the message a bounce? bounce_queue_lifetime. Else
      maximal_queue_lifetime.

      > from the log:
      > postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_], delay=
      > 435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to me: 554-{mx049}
      > Your address is listed as dynamic ...
      > postfix/qmgr[452]: E1477490: from=<leva@...>, status=expired, returned
      > to sender

      The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
      for days instead of bouncing it right away?

      --
      Magnus Bäck
      magnus@...
    • LeVA
      2006. január 1. 23:20, Magnus Bäck ... I don t know, please tell me. My mail.log is filled with that message (deferred), the first
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
        2006. január 1. 23:20,
        Magnus Bäck <magnus@...>
        -> postfix-users@...,:
        > > I have a mail which always gets deferred. Now postfix waits 5 days
        > > before sending me the "Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender" mail, and
        > > deleting the mail from the queue. With which option can I adjust this
        > > 5 day limit, the 'bounce_queue_lifetime', or with the
        > > 'maximal_queue_lifetime' (or with another maybe :)?
        >
        > Is the message a bounce? bounce_queue_lifetime. Else
        > maximal_queue_lifetime.
        >
        > > from the log:
        > > postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_], delay=
        > > 435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to me:
        > > 554-{mx049} Your address is listed as dynamic ...
        > > postfix/qmgr[452]: E1477490: from=<leva@...>, status=expired,
        > > returned to sender
        >
        > The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
        > for days instead of bouncing it right away?
        I don't know, please tell me. My mail.log is filled with that message
        (deferred), the first message's timestamp is dec. 27, and it got expired
        today (jan. 01).
        So if I understand you correctly, I must adjust the maximal_queue_lifetime for
        this kind of error?

        Daniel

        --
        LeVA
      • Sandy Drobic
        ... Probably because the server that was contacted was so hasty it disconnected immediately: telnet mx0.gmx.net 25 554-{mx028} Your address is listed as
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
          Magnus Bäck wrote:

          >>from the log:
          >>postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_], delay=
          >>435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to me: 554-{mx049}
          >>Your address is listed as dynamic ...
          >>postfix/qmgr[452]: E1477490: from=<leva@...>, status=expired, returned
          >>to sender
          >
          >
          > The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
          > for days instead of bouncing it right away?

          Probably because the server that was contacted was so hasty it
          disconnected immediately:

          telnet mx0.gmx.net 25

          554-{mx028} Your address is listed as dynamic on SORBS (dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net)
          554 We are currently not accepting connections from such hosts.

          Connection to host lost.


          And so Postfix tries again and again and again...
          until max_queue_lifetime is reached. :((

          Sandy
        • Deim Ágoston
          ... He says that your server doesn t work as expected. Postfix should bounce the message immediately as it gets the permanent error code. That s why it is
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
            >> The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
            >> for days instead of bouncing it right away?
            > I don't know, please tell me. My mail.log is filled with that message
            > (deferred), the first message's timestamp is dec. 27, and it got expired
            > today (jan. 01).
            > So if I understand you correctly, I must adjust the maximal_queue_lifetime
            > for
            > this kind of error?
            He says that your server doesn't work as expected. Postfix should bounce
            the message immediately as it gets the permanent error code. That's why it
            is permanent. Deferred mails are deferred because there is a temporary
            error which should go away.

            bye,
            Ago
            ps.: and I would change the email address as it's offensive to christian
            people and stuck-up. You're not God, as your email address suggests. I
            don't find ifunny personally.
          • /dev/rob0
            ... This wasn t what you were asking, but perhaps is ultimately your best solution: postconf.5.html#relayhost -- mail to this address is discarded unless
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
              On Sunday 2006-January-01 16:15, LeVA wrote:
              > postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_],
              > delay= 435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to
              > me: 554-{mx049} Your address is listed as dynamic ...

              This wasn't what you were asking, but perhaps is ultimately your best
              solution: postconf.5.html#relayhost
              --
              mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
              or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
            • Sandy Drobic
              ... I decided to use a transport to a relay host for the troublesome servers that blocked dynamic ips in suche an abrasive way. It works for the few domains
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
                /dev/rob0 wrote:
                > On Sunday 2006-January-01 16:15, LeVA wrote:
                >
                >>postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_],
                >>delay= 435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to
                >>me: 554-{mx049} Your address is listed as dynamic ...
                >
                >
                > This wasn't what you were asking, but perhaps is ultimately your best
                > solution: postconf.5.html#relayhost

                I decided to use a transport to a relay host for the troublesome servers
                that blocked dynamic ips in suche an abrasive way. It works for the few
                domains that I encountered so far.

                Sandy
              • mouss
                ... Note that some people use block lists for dynamic IPs that have their own definition of what a dynamic IP is. In particular, MAPS RBL (now acquired by
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
                  Sandy Drobic a écrit :
                  >
                  > I decided to use a transport to a relay host for the troublesome servers
                  > that blocked dynamic ips in suche an abrasive way. It works for the few
                  > domains that I encountered so far.

                  Note that some people use block lists for dynamic IPs that have their
                  own definition of what a dynamic IP is. In particular, MAPS RBL (now
                  acquired by trend micro...) and SORBS are known to "abuse the system"
                  (do they deserve being called power hungry weenies?). unfortunately,
                  many people use sorbs. Of course, most missed the fact that sorbs have
                  blocked the postfix ML (at least) twice last year (I mean 2005). M.S. (I
                  respect his goal) explained that it was a human error, but I don't rely
                  on "human errors". as the Chinese saying goes: if someone beats you
                  once, it's his fault. If he beats you twice, it's yours.

                  best wishes for everybody on list, net and/or earth, even the bad ones
                  (including myself;-p).
                • Wietse Venema
                  ... Because people expect this, the RFC notwithstanding. http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_skip_5xx_greeting Wietse
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 1, 2006
                    Magnus B?ck:
                    > > postfix/smtp[7610]: E1477490: to=<_address_>, relay=_host_[_ip_], delay=
                    > > 435490, status=deferred (host _host_[_ip_] refused to talk to me: 554-{mx049}
                    > > Your address is listed as dynamic ...
                    > > postfix/qmgr[452]: E1477490: from=<leva@...>, status=expired, returned
                    > > to sender
                    >
                    > The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
                    > for days instead of bouncing it right away?

                    Because people expect this, the RFC notwithstanding.

                    http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_skip_5xx_greeting

                    Wietse
                  • LeVA
                    2006. január 2. 02:43, Wietse Venema ... Thanks, this solved it. Daniel -- LeVA
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 2, 2006
                      2006. január 2. 02:43,
                      Wietse Venema <wietse@...>
                      -> Postfix users <postfix-users@...>,:
                      > > The server gives a permanent error code. Why would Postfix defer this
                      > > for days instead of bouncing it right away?
                      >
                      > Because people expect this, the RFC notwithstanding.
                      >
                      > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_skip_5xx_greeting
                      >
                      Thanks, this solved it.

                      Daniel

                      --
                      LeVA
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.