If both postfix’ in your example are the same server, then that’s not possible
indeed.
Consider it has one brain, so it has to decide: Do I know this domain or do I
need to
send it upstream (either to the MX of the target domain, or to a configured
relay).
In case it’s a domain postfix hosts, a
So there is no way to skip Postfix for incoming messages and go directly to
LMTP/LDA but I need two instances of Postfix in that case?
Regarding your second question - it is required to be complaint with Direct
Trust.
Thanks,
Adam
On 4/2/20, 3:07 PM, "dovecot on behalf of Juri Haberland"
w
On 02/04/2020 15:18, Adam Raszkiewicz wrote:
> Desired flow looks like:
>
> Dovecot -> Postfix --> Relay Server -┐
> Dovecot <-- LMTP/LDA <-- Postfix <-┘
This mail flow cannot work with one Postfix instance. Either Postfix
knows that "localdomain.com" is lo
Hi all,
I am running postfix with dovecot configured for local mail delivery.
Everything works as expected for a while, but after successfully
delivering ~250 mails, dovecot does not accept requests anymore and
mails start queueing up in the postfix mailqueue. After restarting
dovecot, another ~25
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:18:14 +, Adam Raszkiewicz stated:
>Desired flow looks like:
>
>Dovecot -> Postfix --> Relay Server -┐
>Dovecot <-- LMTP/LDA <-- Postfix <-┘
>
>Top part of that flow works fine - a message will get to the relay
>server and it will be
On 02 Apr 2020, at 06:27, Sami Ketola wrote:
> if you do cat /usr/local/virtual/user@domain/.active_sieve does it follow the
> symlink correctly?
Yes.
On 02 Apr 2020, at 05:03, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> And what is the "default sieve file"?
The system-code one that runs for all users.
# cat /usr/li
Desired flow looks like:
Dovecot -> Postfix --> Relay Server -┐
Dovecot <-- LMTP/LDA <-- Postfix <-┘
Top part of that flow works fine - a message will get to the relay server and
it will be send back to the postfix for a local delivery but then
it will sta
> On 2 Apr 2020, at 14.02, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 02 Apr 2020, at 03:48, Aki Tuomi wrote:
>> On 2.4.2020 11.07, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> Is there any reason that a .active_sieve file would not load because it is
>>> a symbolic link? The target of the link is readable by the mail user, but
>>> inst
Hello,
i use a proxy only configuration with version 2.2.22 (Ubuntu 16.04) and have
now transferred it to version 2.3.10. This works as before.
But as soon as i use "auth_cache_verify_password_with_worker = yes", it does
not work anymore.
The first login still works, but from the second one, wh
On 2.4.2020 14.02, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 02 Apr 2020, at 03:48, Aki Tuomi wrote:
>> On 2.4.2020 11.07, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> Is there any reason that a .active_sieve file would not load because it is
>>> a symbolic link? The target of the link is readable by the mail user, but
>>> instead of gettin
On 02 Apr 2020, at 03:48, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> On 2.4.2020 11.07, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Is there any reason that a .active_sieve file would not load because it is a
>> symbolic link? The target of the link is readable by the mail user, but
>> instead of getting the trace for the .active_sieve file, I
On 2.4.2020 11.07, @lbutlr wrote:
> Is there any reason that a .active_sieve file would not load because it is a
> symbolic link? The target of the link is readable by the mail user, but
> instead of getting the trace for the .active_sieve file, I only get the trace
> for the default sieve fil
Is there any reason that a .active_sieve file would not load because it is a
symbolic link? The target of the link is readable by the mail user, but instead
of getting the trace for the .active_sieve file, I only get the trace for the
default sieve file.
--
'Winners never talk about glorious
13 matches
Mail list logo
