search for: mx2

...regards to specific dovecot replication behaviour and I'm just wondering if this is actually an expected/normal behaviour, or just a version issue. I'm using dovecot 2.3.16 which is packed by default with latest Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS server release. I setup dovecot replication pair (mx1 - mx2) which is working ok. MX1 has priority 10, MX2 has priority 20. I use maildir (postfix + dovecot lmtp). The "strange" behaviour is this. When new mail arrives, it's by default delivered into "new" folder inside user directory. This email is then replicated to both serve...

...s to specific dovecot replication behaviour and I'm just wondering if this is actually an expected/normal behaviour, or just a version issue. > > I'm using dovecot 2.3.16 which is packed by default with latest Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS server release. I setup dovecot replication pair (mx1 - mx2) which is working ok. MX1 has priority 10, MX2 has priority 20. I use maildir (postfix + dovecot lmtp). > > The "strange" behaviour is this. When new mail arrives, it's by default delivered into "new" folder inside user directory. This email is then replicated to both...

...cific dovecot replication behaviour and I'm just wondering if this is actually an expected/normal behaviour, or just a version issue. >> >> I'm using dovecot 2.3.16 which is packed by default with latest Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS server release. I setup dovecot replication pair (mx1 - mx2) which is working ok. MX1 has priority 10, MX2 has priority 20. I use maildir (postfix + dovecot lmtp). >> >> The "strange" behaviour is this. When new mail arrives, it's by default delivered into "new" folder inside user directory. This email is then replicated...

...o mail servers and am also experiencing sporadic replication errors over tcps, similar to Reuben. Each server is running Dovecot 2.3.11.3 (502c39af9) on Debian 10.6. *Log entries from MX1* Nov 18 00:39:26 mx1 dovecot: dsync-local(user at example.com)<Ow3zAjWxtF+TDgAAPHKnuQ>: Error: dsync(mx2.example.com): I/O has stalled, no activity for 600 seconds (last sent=mailbox, last recv=mailbox_state) Nov 18 00:39:26 mx1 dovecot: dsync-local(user at example.com)<Ow3zAjWxtF+TDgAAPHKnuQ>: Error: Timeout during state=sync_mails (send=mailbox recv=mailbox) Nov 18 06:39:32 mx1 dovecot: ds...

...load is constantly about 3 %. I put on stricter limits on who is allowed recursive queries, but this does not affect the CPU load. I also updated bind. I temporarily turned on querylog (command: rndc querylog), and noticed that I get over 200 queries like this per second: > Aug 17 07:41:38 mx2 named[6873]: client 205.145.64.200#53: query (cache) 'ripe.net/ANY/IN' denied > Aug 17 07:41:38 mx2 named[6873]: client 204.10.45.5#53: query (cache) 'ripe.net/ANY/IN' denied > Aug 17 07:41:38 mx2 named[6873]: client 78.40.35.212#53: query (cache) 'ripe.net/ANY/IN' den...

Hi, I've been seeing errors logged for some time with replication processes, whereby replication sessions seem to be timing out periodically. This is with dovecot version 2.3.10.1 (a3d0e1171) and both are Gentoo x86_64. After some investigation I've determined that these timeouts are only ever occurring with tcps as the replication connection type. These errors never occur if

Our backup mail server (which I have just re-configured) tries to contact the primary mail server, and fails. My log shows repeatedly "connection refused": May 15 22:21:41 mx2 sm-mta-rx[8674]: q4FIhPij007483: makeconnection (mail.greenspot.fi. [83.143.217.182]) failed: Connection refused by mail.greenspot.fi. May 15 22:21:41 mx2 sm-mta-rx[8674]: q4FIhPij007483: to=<myuser at mydomain.com>, delay=00:38:16, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=10021795, relay=mail....

...by considering all combinations of its levels. So suppose again I have 1000 such multiple-leveled category variables and I need to do some feature selection. Then I would like to try chi-sqr tests (or information gain). To match the splitting method used in rf, I am thinking if I should simply use mx2 contingency table or (2^(m-1)-1)'s 2x2 contingency tables in which I pick the best p-value to evaluate A's power. For the latter, I am sure it is very alike the way used in rf. But is the former good enough? Thanks. -- Weiwei Shi, Ph.D Research Scientist GeneGO, Inc. "Did you always...

...g file and dovecot -n output) > Did you check permissons on the replication fifos? For what? I think that problems on slave. How it should work in automatic mode? I repeat that from slave manually all works fine: >> As I can see nothing happens automatically. >> But mx2:~# doveadm -D sync -u abuse at example.com -d -N -l 30 -U >> successfully executed and getting mails from mx1. prw-rw---- 1 dovecot mail 0 May 8 06:29 replication-notify-fifo > Does it work if you issue: > > doveadm replicator replicate '*' mx1:~# doveadm repli...

...emails either via POP3 either via IMAP, inbound email gets on any of the machines). Each machine is on a different continent, there is no shared drive in between and the synchronization is supposed to be asynchronous via cron scripts. To simplify the case, let's consider 2 machines (mx1.a and mx2.a) with 3 virtual domains (a and b and c). On both machine domain a is the default domain (needs only username to connect to imap). Initially I synchronize mx1.a with mx2.a using rsync. I check that I can login using dovecot. I tried any of the following commands to synchronize the 2 machines: m...

...> | >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content > | >> that is not suitable for minors. > | > > | >> It is possible subscribed under different address. > | > > | >> IP of offending spam : > | > > | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com > | >> [45.55.128.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher As you see from this your header spam was not delivered through centos mail list, but comes from one of the IPs of digitalocean.com IP block: 45.55.0.0/16. As Fabian told centos mail list server admins...

julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content that is not suitable for minors. It is possible subscribed under different address. IP of offending spam : Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com [45.55.128.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.domblogger.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4871C5B for <alice at domblogger.net>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:29:11 +0000 (UTC)

...to be considered more or less as equals, since the "primary" system is getting beaten pretty hard. The DNS zone file says something like this: ############################### @isp.com <SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 1100 mx2.isp.com. <SNIP ################################ I seem to recall that I make them act as "equals" by simply changing this to ############################### @isp.com <SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 100 mx2.isp.com. &lt...

...s but have joined up because of above */2.3.1 Replication is throwing scary errors /*Brief system configuration ??? MX1 - Main ??? ??? Freebsd 11.1-Release-p9 ??? ??? Hosted on a Vultr VM in Sydney AU ??? ??? MTA = Postfix 3.4-20180401 ??? ??? Dovecot = 2.3.1 ??? ??? File system = ufs ??? MX2 - Backup ??? ??? Freebsd 11.1-Release-p9 ??? ???? Running on bare metal - no VM or jails ??? ??? MTA = Postfix 3.4-20180401 ??? ??? Dovecot = 2.3.1 ??? ??? File system = ufs ( on SSD) */ /*Brief sequence of events 1. ??? apx 10 days back upgraded both mx1 and mx2 to dovecot 2.3.1_2 fro...

...th dovecot-sql-master.conf rewrite the first one, but sql-master.conf didn't include iterate_query. I removed the wrong second declaration. Thanks. What about automatic replication without manually running of doveadm sync? >> As I can see nothing happens automatically. >> But mx2:~# doveadm -D sync -u abuse at example.com -d -N -l 30 -U >> successfully executed and getting mails from mx1. Regards, Alexey

...domain get stuck in the queue: # mailq /var/spool/mqueue (2 requests) -----Q-ID----- --Size-- -----Q-Time----- ------------Sender/ Recipient----------- m61D6wC1029257 16 Tue Jul 1 09:06 <XXXX at XXXX.XXXX.com> (Deferred: Connection timed out with mx2.emailsrvr.com.) <alfred at von-campe.com> It appears that our firewall is not allowing connection to outside MX hosts. I think I need to configure sendmail to forward emails to our local smtp host, but I am not sure how to do that. Alfred

...wrote: >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com > >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content >> that is not suitable for minors. > >> It is possible subscribed under different address. > >> IP of offending spam : > >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com >> [45.55.128.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher >> ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client >> certificate requested) by mail.domblogger.net (Postfix) with >> ESMTPS id C4871C5B for <alice at domblogger.net>; Tue, 25...

...,] 50 50 [2,] 512 50 [3,] 974 50 [4,] 50 512 [5,] 974 512 [6,] 50 974 [7,] 512 974 [8,] 974 974 > model<-lm(My~Mx) > model Call: lm(formula = My ~ Mx) Coefficients: [,1] [,2] (Intercept) 0.934727 3.918421 Mx1 1.003517 -0.004202 Mx2 -0.002624 0.998155 > model<-rlm(My~Mx) Error in lm.wfit(x, y, w, method = "qr") : incompatible dimensions > model<-rlm(My~Mx,psi=psi.bisquare) Error in lm.wfit(x, y, w, method = "qr") : incompatible dimensions Another example (this one...

On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote: > > > On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: > <<>> > > something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will.. > >>> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com > > loverhearts.com is a single page that seems to do nothing. and there is > nothing in page source to do anything. > > validator.w3.org shows 1 error and 1 warning showing that page was > poorly written. > > so the only harm is spam, wh...

...26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote: >>> On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>>> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: >>> <<>> >>> something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will.. >>>>> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com >>> loverhearts.com is a single page that seems to do nothing. and there is > nothing in page source to do anything. >>> validator.w3.org shows 1 error and 1 warning showing that page was > poorly written. >>> so the only harm is...