Quoting Patrick Domack :
To make it work the current way, is simple.
I would love for it though, to lookup and see if an mailbox exists
with the delim first, then if it doesn't lookup just the username
part.
Quoting Andrew Ray :
Hi,
It would be nice if the recipient_delimiter confi
To make it work the current way, is simple.
--- a/src/lmtp/commands.c 2013-02-05 18:31:36.0 -0500
+++ b/src/lmtp/commands.c 2014-01-28 18:15:01.011677816 -0500
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@
return;
domain = strchr(address, '@');
- p = strstr(address, clien
On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54 , LuKreme wrote:
> dovecot unix- n n - - pipe flags=DRhu
> user=user:group argv=/usr/local/libexec/dovecot/deliver -f ${sender} -d
> ${user}@${nexthop} -m ${extension}
I ran into a problem with this line in that the D flag generates an e
Thanks Steffen, with the very slight alteration of removing the -n (which
caused deliver to abort and the message to bounce, oops) from the line I
posted, everything works just fine.
For the archives:
dovecot unix- n n - - pipe flags=DRhu
user=user:group argv=/
On 24 Oct 2013, at 00:37 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> This particular step is done in your MTA. So, how do you deliver your
> messages from the MTA into the mail storage of the user? If you want to use
> procmail for system users and Dovecot's LDA/LMTP for virtual users, you need
> to configure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, LuKreme wrote:
OK, I've been banging my head on why my procmail setup for virtual users is no
longer working (difficult to test, since enabling it breaks live user's mail).
There are only a few virtual users who have any sort
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:54:41 -0500 (CDT)
Larry Stone articulated:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
>
> >> Why use procmail when sieve is so much more powerful?
> >
> > First, I have a lot of procmail recipes over many years. Second,
> > there are quite a few things that sieve can?t do that p
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:39:10 -0600
LuKreme articulated:
>
> On 27 Sep 2013, at 13:45 , Jerry wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:01:20 -0600
> > LuKreme articulated:
> >
> >>
> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:36 , Noel Butler
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Certainly does not do that by _default_ in a norm
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
Why use procmail when sieve is so much more powerful?
First, I have a lot of procmail recipes over many years. Second, there
are quite a few things that sieve can?t do that procmail does well (for
just one example, calling external programs).
One of the
On 27 Sep 2013, at 13:45 , Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:01:20 -0600
> LuKreme articulated:
>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:36 , Noel Butler wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly does not do that by _default_ in a normal
>>> mysql/virtuser/maildir setup using lda
>>> when mail arrives for foo+dove.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:01:20 -0600
LuKreme articulated:
>
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:36 , Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > Certainly does not do that by _default_ in a normal
> > mysql/virtuser/maildir setup using lda
> > when mail arrives for foo+dove...@example.com
> > it gets stored in foo's cur/
> >
On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:36 , Noel Butler wrote:
> Certainly does not do that by _default_ in a normal
> mysql/virtuser/maildir setup using lda
> when mail arrives for foo+dove...@example.com
> it gets stored in foo's cur/
> leaving it for the end users mail client to decide what to do with it,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
On 26 Sep 2013, at 10:09 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
Can I enable $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ for only the virtual sql users?
le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
On 26 Sep 2013, at 15:29 , voy...@sbt.net.au wrote:
should I also enter $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ in my
/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf ?
what will it add to this working setup, what am I missing?
Setting it will,
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 17:24 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 15:29 , voy...@sbt.net.au wrote:
> > should I also enter $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ in my
> > /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf ?
> >
> > what will it add to this working setup, what am I missing?
>
> Setting it will, as I understan
On 26 Sep 2013, at 15:29 , voy...@sbt.net.au wrote:
> should I also enter $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ in my
> /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf ?
>
> what will it add to this working setup, what am I missing?
Setting it will, as I understand it, cause dovecot to automatically file
+extension mail in .e
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 07:29 +1000, voy...@sbt.net.au wrote:
>
> I have working dovecot 2.1.1 with postfix, only have virtual domains, all
> users in mysql;
>
> '+' delimiter is enabled in postfix, and, works OK
>
> postfix]# grep _delimiter main.cf
> # The recipient_delimiter parameter specifi
>> $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’
ahem, dumb question coming:
//I often read various threads here, and, look at my own setup, with a
view of optimizing or understanding things I should...//
I have working dovecot 2.1.1 with postfix, only have virtual domains, all
users in mysql;
'+' delimiter is en
On 26 Sep 2013, at 10:09 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> Can I enable $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ for only the virtual sql users?
>
> let it blank in the default config, but return a field
> "plugin/recipie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, LuKreme wrote:
Can I enable $recipient_delimiter = ‘+’ for only the virtual sql users?
let it blank in the default config, but return a field
"plugin/recipient_delimiter" from SQL.
- --
Steffen Kaiser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNA
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:09:19 -0400
Phil Howard articulated:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 09:56, Charles Marcus
> wrote:
> > On 2010-06-01 8:39 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >>> Of course it is meant for people, but it is meant to show only the
> >
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 09:56, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-06-01 8:39 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> Of course it is meant for people, but it is meant to show only the
>>> bare minimum of what postfix sees as the settings. It is left up to
>>>
On 2010-06-01 8:39 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> Of course it is meant for people, but it is meant to show only the
>> bare minimum of what postfix sees as the settings. It is left up to
>> you, the sys admin, to be able to interpret the data as p
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-28 5:01 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 16:53, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> The whole purpose of the -n output is to provide clean, easy to read
>>> *settings* as seen by postfix (as opposed to comments that are meant
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:26:53 -0400
Charles Marcus articulated:
> This in fact makes customizing settings easy (at least for me). I just
> put all of my settings at the end of the file, so I know that those
> will be the ones used regardless of what is specified above.
That is exactly how I do m
On 2010-05-28 5:01 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 16:53, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> The whole purpose of the -n output is to provide clean, easy to read
>> *settings* as seen by postfix (as opposed to comments that are meant for
>> people).
> So you are saying that this is not mean
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 16:53, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-28 4:49 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> If postconf -n carried comments along, then it could be used as a
>> config linter ... let it's output replace the original and that will
>> be the one to edit for the next change.
>
> The whole pur
On 2010-05-28 4:49 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> If postconf -n carried comments along, then it could be used as a
> config linter ... let it's output replace the original and that will
> be the one to edit for the next change.
The whole purpose of the -n output is to provide clean, easy to read
*setti
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 15:28, Jerry wrote:
> Exactly what type of system are you trying to support? I fail to
> understand why you are constantly changing the base Postfix
> configuration. I add/delete users on a virtually daily basis, however,
> once my basic Postifx configuration was setup, I
On 2010-05-28 2:18 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:06, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-05-28 1:00 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>>> Have you seen any config check tools?
>> Yes - it's called a brain. ;)
> I think you are missing the point.
Not...
> A config check tool would be sif
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:18:06 -0400
Phil Howard articulated:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:06, Charles Marcus
> wrote:
> > On 2010-05-28 1:00 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> >>> If the problem is protocol related (connections time out, or an
> >>> SMTP server complains about syntax errors etc.) consider
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:06, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-28 1:00 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>>> If the problem is protocol related (connections time out, or an SMTP
>>> server complains about syntax errors etc.) consider recording a session
>>> with tcpdump, as described in the DEBUG_README d
On 2010-05-28 1:00 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> If the problem is protocol related (connections time out, or an SMTP
>> server complains about syntax errors etc.) consider recording a session
>> with tcpdump, as described in the DEBUG_README document.
> Have you seen any config check tools?
Yes - it
On 2010-05-28 11:25 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:55, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-05-27 1:42 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>>> Yup, there was a 2nd setting nearly at the bottom of the file, and
>>> it was different. Thanks for catching that.
>> This is why you *always* go by wh
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:11, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:25:17 -0400
> Phil Howard articulated:
>
>
>> My main.cf file has the comments (my own that explains why settings
>> are there, not the default comments). It is the easier to read file.
>> Even then, I was also reading the post
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:25:17 -0400
Phil Howard articulated:
> My main.cf file has the comments (my own that explains why settings
> are there, not the default comments). It is the easier to read file.
> Even then, I was also reading the postconf -n output and just didn't
> see the subtle differ
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:55, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-27 1:42 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> Yup, there was a 2nd setting nearly at the bottom of the file, and
>> it was different. Thanks for catching that.
>
> This is why you *always* go by what output pof postconf -n says, not
> what you
On 2010-05-27 1:42 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> Yup, there was a 2nd setting nearly at the bottom of the file, and
> it was different. Thanks for catching that.
This is why you *always* go by what output pof postconf -n says, not
what you think you put in main.cf.
You wasted a lot of time (yours and
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:52, Gregory Finch wrote:
>> recipient_delimiter = -
> ^^
> do you mean to have a + here instead?
Yup, there was a 2nd setting nearly at the bottom of the file, and it
was different. Thanks for catching that.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:52, Gregory Finch wrote:
> On 2010-05-27 8:27 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:50, Gregory Finch wrote:
>>
>>> I've never had to touch auth_username_chars to get this to work.
>>>
>>> In main.cf, I've set:
>>>
>>> mailbox_transport = dovecot
>>
>> I
On 2010-05-27 8:27 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:50, Gregory Finch wrote:
>
>> I've never had to touch auth_username_chars to get this to work.
>>
>> In main.cf, I've set:
>>
>> mailbox_transport = dovecot
>
> I have virtual_transport = dovecot
>
>> recipient_delimiter = +
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:59, Jerry wrote:
> By the way, Postfix must be properly configured to pass the email
> address to dovecot. I leave that as an exercise to the user. You might
> want to start here thought:
>
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Postfix
I already have this:
dovecot un
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:34, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:59, Jerry wrote:
>
>> On or about line 821 in the Dovecot.conf file:
>
> Actually, a lot earlier in my trimmed down version :-)
>
>
>> #auth_username_chars =
>> abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:59, Jerry wrote:
> On or about line 821 in the Dovecot.conf file:
Actually, a lot earlier in my trimmed down version :-)
> #auth_username_chars =
> abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ01234567890.-_@
>
> If you have not all ready done so, add the "+"
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:50, Gregory Finch wrote:
> I've never had to touch auth_username_chars to get this to work.
>
> In main.cf, I've set:
>
> mailbox_transport = dovecot
I have virtual_transport = dovecot
> recipient_delimiter = +
I have that now (didn't when I initially set up the serv
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:59, Jerry wrote:
> On or about line 821 in the Dovecot.conf file:
>
> #auth_username_chars =
> abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ01234567890.-_@
>
> If you have not all ready done so, add the "+" to the end of the list
> and un-comment the line. I bel
On 2010-05-26 1:59 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:20:06 -0400
> Phil Howard articulated:
>
>> I have recipient_delimiter = + in main.cf (Postfix). But deliveries
>> to dovecot/deliver are still being rejected. It appears that the full
>> email is still in the envelope (e.g. phil+how.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:20:06 -0400
Phil Howard articulated:
> I have recipient_delimiter = + in main.cf (Postfix). But deliveries
> to dovecot/deliver are still being rejected. It appears that the full
> email is still in the envelope (e.g. phil+how...@example.com which I
> want to be delivered
On 2010-05-26 4:20 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> I have recipient_delimiter = + in main.cf (Postfix). But deliveries
> to dovecot/deliver are still being rejected. It appears that the full
> email is still in the envelope (e.g. phil+how...@example.com which I
> want to be delivered to p...@example.com
49 matches
Mail list logo
