Hi!
I'd love to have little help with postfix before trixie.
There are 2 open issues which needs fixing, both involving debconf,
and I haven't dealt with debconf before (despite being a long-term
DD), and my time these days is scarce, - so it would be difficult
for me to complet
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 at 14:39:35 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> And there's no way to fix [an in-process plugin architecture] in current
> infrastructure, besides switching to dovecot auth (which works by implementing
> a higher-level protocol than saslauthd does).
This is a recurring pattern: if
at quickly.
The fields of master.cf map quite nicely to systemd. I'd interpret
Heh. Please pause and exhale here. We are not going to ship unit files
for individual Postfix components.
Yes, the idea is very interesting, and it's quite something which goes to
mind when one think abo
rator that creates units from
> master.cf.
Thank you for the excellent explanation.
> Simply converting the default master.cf to unit files and shipping these as
> default would still be a massive regression, because it would obsolete a lot
> of documentation on how the Postfix system is
On Dec 19, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
> Take bind9 named(8) for example – it can chroot (with -t) but AFAIK
> Debian does not use it by default, and I think using the various
Because it makes managing it much harder, since /etc/bind/ then moves to
/var/.
Systemd directives like ProtectSystem, ReadOnl
e the
program not function correctly in use cases not tested by the DD doing
the packagking, and possibly even weaken security.
In any case, postfix is rather special having an internal complicated
sandboxing and privilege separation architecture, which most services
don't have. So my comment was pe
17.12.2024 00:31, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
Anyway, systemd's hardening features are so easy and effective that I
would really like to see not only postfix, but ALL services use them as
much as possible. Why we still have major packages like nginx shipping
without any hardening out-of-the-bo
ing the default master.cf to unit files and shipping these as default would still be a massive regression, because it would obsolete a
lot of documentation on how the Postfix system is orchestrated and how to integrate new services like clamav and spamassassin or to deliver to courier.
All of thes
ferring to chroot(2), and
operations within with might require extra files in the jail (like
presence of /etc/hosts /etc/services etc for host lookups).
Anyway, systemd's hardening features are so easy and effective that I
would really like to see not only postfix, but ALL services use them as
m
"Jonathan Dowland" writes:
> On Wed Dec 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM GMT, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
>> Adding a couple of lines to the systemd unit should not add any new
>> dependincies to the package, or affect users of other init systems in
>> any way.
>
> That's a very good point. In which case that's li
Michael Tokarev writes:
> BTW, is there a way for a systemd unit to take/inherit (security) settings
> from
> another unit?
You might want to look at the examples here
https://github.com/cyberitsolutions/prisonpc-systemd-lockdown/tree/main/systemd/system/postfix%40.service.d
(fro
Hola,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 05:51:34PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> For 25 years, Postfix the MTA in Debian has been setup to run chrooted by
> default (that's where most postfix internal components run chrooted in
> /var/spool/postfix/, to limit possible s
On 18/12/24 14:16, Simon Richter wrote:
Most likely it is because BSD does not have systemd, and quite a lot of
Postfix installations, especially larger ones, run on BSD.
[...]
I don't see this happening without upstream support. However, upstream
has little incentive to do so:
On 16.12.24 15:51, Michael Tokarev wrote:
What do you think about this aspect of postfix on debian?
We now have systemd, which can sandbox far more aspects of postfix (or
indeed any other daemon)'s execution than is possible with a chroot,
esp. considering the hacks we need for th
nd quite a lot of
Postfix installations, especially larger ones, run on BSD.
Postfix's "master" process effectively implements an orchestrator for a
microservice architecture, similar to what systemd does. This could be
replaced by systemd by writing a generator that creates units
On Wed Dec 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM GMT, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
Adding a couple of lines to the systemd unit should not add any new
dependincies to the package, or affect users of other init systems in
any way.
That's a very good point. In which case that's likely not why there is a
lag in adopting
On Wed, 2024-12-18 at 10:38 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I would also like to see this. Perhaps it's because the maintainers
> don't want to close the door to alternative init systems, by making
> their package depend on systemd features?
Adding a couple of lines to the systemd unit should n
On Mon Dec 16, 2024 at 9:31 PM GMT, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
Anyway, systemd's hardening features are so easy and effective that I
would really like to see not only postfix, but ALL services use them as
much as possible. Why we still have major packages like nginx shipping
without any hardenin
e security
postfix@- shows a whole lot of things that could potentially be improved
in hardening settings, and while a lot of those won't work becuase of the
number of things Postfix needs to be able to do, a lot of them are
probably reasonable changes to the defaults if accompanied by instructions
d effective that I
would really like to see not only postfix, but ALL services use them as
much as possible. Why we still have major packages like nginx shipping
without any hardening out-of-the-box?
16.12.2024 20:45, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 16, Michael Tokarev wrote:
What do you think about this aspect of postfix on debian?
I do not remember ever having any issues about this, and I have been
using Postfix since before it was called Postfix. But if Wietse says
that a chroot defau
16.12.2024 20:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
So, I wouldn't object to undoing that given upstream's stance, but maybe
it would be good to do that in conjunction with adding more hardening to
the default configuration with systemd? systemd-analyze security
postfix@- shows a whole lot of t
On Dec 16, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> What do you think about this aspect of postfix on debian?
I do not remember ever having any issues about this, and I have been
using Postfix since before it was called Postfix. But if Wietse says
that a chroot default is not worth it then I fully trust
On 12/16/24 17:45, rhys wrote:
> However, privilege escalation is still a serious issue and should not be
> minimized by its likelihood.
I didn't, my point is that I think they are better/more effectively
adressed with other mechanims (systemd unit hardening) than chroot.
> The "REAL" danger is t
is
>same mechanism).
> 2. Cyrus SASL, - for any non-trivial (PLAIN or LOGIN) methods, it
>needs the secrets database to be accessible in the chroot, and
>people on the 'net suggest really crazy things to fix this (like
>moving /etc/sasl2 userdb to /var/spool/postfix/etc
et
>
> I do both and would welcome non-chrooted by default for both scenarios
> in order to have a nicer, simpler and better integrated experience with
> the rest of the system with less special casing. postfix would e.g. way
> more profit from with namespace, capability and proc
Hi,
first - thanks a lot for working on postfix packaging, it really needs
some love.
On 12/16/24 15:51, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> What do you think about this aspect of postfix on debian?
my opinion in short: I would get rid of the chrooted complexity, it's
not worth it and introduces
Hi!
For 25 years, Postfix the MTA in Debian has been setup to run chrooted by
default (that's where most postfix internal components run chrooted in
/var/spool/postfix/, to limit possible system damage after a possible
compromise).
This setup has been criticized for 25 years, becau
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Goirand
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: puppet-module-camptocamp-postfix
Version : 1.11.0
Upstream Author : Raphaël Pinson
* URL : https://github.com/camptocamp/puppet-postfix
* License
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Swarbrick
* Package name: prometheus-postfix-exporter
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Author : Bart Vercoulen , Ed Schouten
* URL : https://github.com/kumina/postfix_exporter
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: postfix-mta-sts-resolver
Version : 0.2.4
* URL : https://github.com/Snawoot/postfix-mta-sts-resolver
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: python
Description : Daemon which provides TLS client policy for
Programming Lang: Python
Description : postfix policy daemon limiting the number of mails a user
can send
policyd-rate-limit is a simple postfix policy daemon written in python3
allowing to limit the number of mails a user can send over time.
Users are identified either via their sasl
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:30:47PM +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote:
> Dear LaMont, dear list,
> is the postfix package still maintained?
> There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
My plans to work on this recently got derailed in dealing with a death
in the family. As it curre
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:26:30PM -0200, Albino B Neto wrote:
> > is the postfix package still maintained?
> >
> > There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
>
> really?
>
> https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix
This package is from November 2014.
Albino B Neto wrote:
> 2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch :
>> is the postfix package still maintained?
>> There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
> really?
> https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix
Could you please be a little bit more verbose?
c
On 09/12/15 18:26, Albino B Neto wrote:
> 2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch :
>> is the postfix package still maintained?
>>
>> There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
>
> really?
>
> https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix
There is an
2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch :
> is the postfix package still maintained?
>
> There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
really?
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix
Albino
Dear LaMont, dear list,
is the postfix package still maintained?
There seems to be no activity since November 2014.
Regards,
Stefan
ody need to whitelist to allow mail
>forwarded from a debian.org address?
>
>Should check_helo_access be used with a domain or IP or some other
>value specific to mail forwarded by Debian's MTA?
The easiest way to do it, assuming you're using postfix-policyd-spf-python, is
within th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/12/15 20:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> Can anybody comment on the recommended way to allow mail
>> forwarded from debian.org mail servers?
> You whitelist them from your SPF checks, because SPF is the kind o
On Dec 08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Can anybody comment on the recommended way to allow mail forwarded from
> debian.org mail servers?
You whitelist them from your SPF checks, because SPF is the kind of
FUSSP which requires the whole Internet to modify their servers to
support forwarding.
--
ci
I have the Postfix package on jessie with SPF checks on incoming mail.
I'm have trouble receiving mail forwarded from the poc...@debian.org
email address.
>From main.cf, these lines mention spf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authe
postfix
mtpolicyd is a modular policy daemon for postfix written in perl.
It has support for virtual hosts, session caching, per-user
configuration and is easily extensible thru plugins.
It already ships with a lot of plugins:
RBL - query DNS IP black/whitelists
DBL - query DNS domain black
(SRS) lookup table for Postfix
PostSRSd provides Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS) support for Postfix via
TCP-based lookup tables. SRS is needed if your mail server acts as a forwarder,
and the mail originates from a server with Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
enabled.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:30:30PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> The correct solution here is that the MTA that supports 8BITMIME
> itself and wants to send an 8-bit message to another MTA that
> doesn’t offer it in the EHLO dialogue (or doesn’t support EHLO)
> *must* convert the message to QP an
Philipp Kern dixit:
>I also assume that Exim does send 8bit mails to non-8bit compliant MTAs (i.e.
>not advertising 8BITMIME). I don't know if that's some sort of violation.
It does, and it’s a violation, yes. I’ve cursed often enough
about that (deliberately running an MTA stripping bit7, for
s
On Thu, 17 May 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> > bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
> >
> Interesting. Can you po
On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
>
Interesting. Can you post an example here?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-d
On May 09, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> In addition to that it would be nice if everyone could agree to not work
> against a certain init implementation (for example by refusing to
> include the startup file for that init when someone else has written one
> and submited it as a wishlist bug).
I definit
Russ, I flagged your message as one to respond to, but not to debate any
particular point you raise, but rather to thank you for raising it at all,
despite it being potentially controversial. I'd also like to thank you for
tirelessly participating on the list, especially in recent times: I find yo
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:58:53PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We should have had some enthusiastic replies and constructive
> comments on how we could make this happen, how we could improve
> OpenRC to fit our needs. Instead, I have read posts criticizing
> without knowing. If I was Patrick, I'
Thomas Goirand writes:
> But that's not the problem. The issue is that there's no
> outcome, and that it's demotivating. If I read others that
> what we want to work on isn't a good idea, I will simply
> not work on that, and external contributors will run away.
I agree with this. The init syste
On 05/03/2012 07:23 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I agree that's a problem too and I share your feeling that it has been
> particularly bad in recent discussions like the init system ones.
To keep on the topic of the init systems, we had Patrick Lauer,
a Gentoo developer who I believe knows quite
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:33:54PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> fwiw, there's just (as in within the past couple of hours) been a change
> committed upstream which defaults accept_8bitmime to true.
Good news.
As mentioned on bug #445013:
-snip-
> accept_8bitmime = true
> I would actually rec
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:13:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this the right time to do it?
>
No, we're about to freeze. I would try and dig out the discussion from
last time, when we were about to freeze, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
If you want to do this, then please look at it during
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:14 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 07:12:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There's nothing particularly wrong with Exim; it works just fine.
>
> Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> forcing quoted-printable convers
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:58:18 Carsten Hey wrote:
Hi,
> The rest of this mail is likely not interesting for most of you since it
> only tries to answer the natural follow up question "Why does it need
> a cronjob then?" and explains why I don't think anymore that a switch to
> incron should be
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:44:17PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It was implemented because at the time ubuntu-devel had a very low signal to
> noise ratio and developers were getting frustrated (sound familiar). My
> opinion is that it worked pretty well.
> Most of the noise immediately shif
On Friday, May 04, 2012 11:17:24 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details
> On Jue 03 May 2012 08:23:29 Stefano Zacchiroli escribió:
> [snip]
>
> > 3) public, but contributors-only list
> >
> >
> >
> > This has been implem
On Jue 03 May 2012 08:23:29 Stefano Zacchiroli escribió:
[snip]
> 3) public, but contributors-only list
>
> This has been implemented by other FOSS projects. A notable example is
> Ubuntu who have a split between ubuntu-devel (project members only +
> whitelisting) and ubuntu-devel-discuss (free
On 04. mai 2012 01:29, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 02/05/12 02:00, brian m. carlson wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
encounterin
On 02/05/12 02:00, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
>> I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
>> 10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
>> encountering a truly 7 bit MTA in this decade
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> [...]
>> When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be
>> corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely
>> silent corruption.
> [...]
> Have you really seen this happening in this century
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:23:29PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 3) public, but contributors-only list
> This has been implemented by other FOSS projects. A notable example is
> Ubuntu who have a split between ubuntu-devel (project members only +
> whitelisting) and ubuntu-devel-discuss (fre
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:11:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given recent experiences, I'm also coming around to Ian's position that
> aggressive and confrontational contributions from people who don't
> otherwise seem to be contributing to Debian are part of the problem and
> are not useful, an
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > All MTA bounce messages are just plain unreadable crap for the average
> > human on Earth, I'm afraid. For some of them, it's even worse than
> > Vogon poetry.
>
> IME this is true even after you translate it to the local language and dum
On Thursday, May 03, 2012 02:45:06 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-05-02 20:23:41 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> > >>
> > >> Jon Dowland wrote:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 29. April 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:03:11PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 |
> > mta" to something else.
> The brokenness of having to have a default package hardcoded in
> every virt
On 2012-05-02 20:23:41 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> >> Jon Dowland wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> >> >
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
>> Jon Dowland wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> > > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
>>
>> > If ex
On 2012-05-02 15:00:36 +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
> Jon Dowland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
>
> > If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it
eadable message describing the real
> > cause
> > of the problem can then be re-sent once the problem is fixed.
>
> You mean a message readable by a human even when it happens that this
> human is a non English-speaking non-geek person? :-)
Well, FWIW postfix allows you to
(slightly off-topic)
Quoting Russell Coker (russ...@coker.com.au):
> No, bouncing mail when it can't be properly delivered is much better than
> violating RFCs.
>
> Mail that is bounced with a human readable message describing the real cause
> of the problem can then be re-sent once the proble
Russell Coker wrote:
[...]
> When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be
> corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely
> silent corruption.
[...]
Have you really seen this happening in this century? Are there really
MTAs active in t
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:23 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
> >
> > Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-
Hello,
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:31 +0100
Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
> If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it hadn't announced 8BITMIME
> in the EHLO response, it will relay that
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > It would be possible for a DKIM verification program to re-encode 7bit
> > messages to 8bit for a second attempt at verification. But if a DKIM
> > milter author was going to do tricky things then a better first option
> > would be to try removing an
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 07:23:13 PM Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
> >
> > Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
>
> Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-encode
> the mail and send it on as 7-bit, or when you leave it al
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable.
Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-encode the
mail and send it on as 7-bit, or when you leave it alone and send it as 8 bit
to a host that doesn't ad
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> No it doesn't if 8BITMIME annouces are turned off!
If exim receives an 8 bit mail, even if it hadn't announced 8BITMIME in
the EHLO response, it will relay that message verbatim to other hosts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Riku Voipio wrote:
> It would be a RFC violation to just pass 8bit mails to servers not
> advertizing 8bitmime. It would be rfc compatible to the sending server
> to bounce instead of qp-converting 8bit mails, but that would arguably
> be even worse.
No, bouncing mail when it
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:18:07PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> So just stop Postfix doing the conversion?
It's not just postfix, it's at least courier and sendmail and various
propiertary MTA's do conversions when encountering default configured
exims.
It would be a RFC viol
Hello,
On Tue, 1 May 2012 23:03:38 +0200
Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I wonder why many people in this thread still don't understand this.
> > And also I can't see why some find this annoying behaviour or
> > something wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what it does
> > now, as re-encoding
On 2012-05-01 18:55:20 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to describe what issue(s) there are concerning
> > 8BITMIME and why this is important. I've found some information [1] about
> > this, but it isn't clea
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:47:08PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote:
> I have enabled accept_8bitmime in every exim I've installed for the last
> 10 years and no one has reported any problems. I think the risk of
> encountering a truly 7 bit MTA in this decade is low enough to be
> ignored for most purposes
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:30:23PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> > So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> > 8BITMIME by default.
>
> No, Exim should
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:55:20, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
...
> > The quoted 2010 survey [2] showed Exim was the most popular MTA (which I
> > found surprising), deployment of Exim growing just slightly faster than
&
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:30:23PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> > So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> > 8BITMIME by default.
>
> No, Exim should not announce 8BITMIME,
Hello,
On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:18:07 +0200
Philipp Kern wrote:
> So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce
> 8BITMIME by default.
No, Exim should not announce 8BITMIME, or it will violate RFC, not
otherwise. Now it doesn't announce it, but accepts, so RF
On 01/05/12 15:10, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I think the reason Exim does not do this protocol conversion is that from the
> point of view of an MTA author, the point of an MTA is to transmit the body
> of
> the message without any modification to it once received, and body
> modification would be
,
> both which have no problems with 8bit mails itself.
>
> Honesstly. my grievance is really just having to convert things to 7bit..
> still!
So just stop Postfix doing the conversion? Or teach Exim to announce 8BITMIME
by default.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 06:55:20 PM Riku Voipio wrote:
...
> Honesstly. my grievance is really just having to convert things to 7bit.. s
...
In the future, you're likely to still be stuck doing this for other 'fun'
reasons. The one I ran into recently was that 8 bit -> 7 bit conversions will
br
blems with 8bit mails itself.
Honesstly. my grievance is really just having to convert things to 7bit.. still!
> The quoted 2010 survey [2] showed Exim was the most popular MTA (which I
> found
> surprising), deployment of Exim growing just slightly faster than Postfix,
> and
>
; about this, but it isn't clear what problems are actially *caused* by
> > the lack of 8BITMIME support by default in Exim. Is it just slow
> > sending of outbound attachments?
>
> The only issue I found so far is that Postfix will convert mails when
> sending to
sed* by the lack of
> 8BITMIME support by default in Exim. Is it just slow sending of outbound
> attachments?
The only issue I found so far is that Postfix will convert mails when sending
to an Exim that does not advertise 8BITMIME (like *.d.o). Which let me with
the need to handle qp althoug
all simply because it came by default in debian and it was
> "good enough" so people didnt' switch away from it.
The quoted 2010 survey [2] showed Exim was the most popular MTA (which I found
surprising), deployment of Exim growing just slightly faster than Postfix, and
ever
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:55:24PM BST, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Not on a laptop or any machine that has to conserve power and avoid
> unnecessary wakeups / disk spin-ups.
Or any device with an SSD or SD card (more and more popular net-tops
nowadays).
> A cronjob every 5 minutes means you need to s
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 07:18:54PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Unrelated: you have just shown what poisons Debian and has been keeping
>> us behind innovation for the last years. Not the flamewars themselves,
>> most of us are grown ups and can handle them, but the
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120430 17:09]:
> Riku Voipio writes:
> > Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> > forcing quoted-printable conversions to make emails "7bit clean" is
> > quite horribly wrong.
>
> I didn't realize that. I agree, that's an annoy
1 - 100 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
