On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:00 PM, Chookiex wrote:
Hi All,
I want to do a test with postfix.
For example, I will relay many mails to postfix and postfix delivery
maiils to mda.
But you know, mda may not be stable enough, so mda would not work
occasionally.
At this time, the postfix would bounce m
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 13:51:31 Steve wrote:
> > But I don't think this is it. What you want to do is make
> > subclasses that continue on into your restrictions.
>
> This statement I don't understand. Allow me to rephrase what I
> have understood from the above paragraph:
>
> Restrictions are m
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:42, Thomas Gelf wrote:
the person who did not correctly set up the network is to be blamed,
if you have equipment acting as MTA it should be configured the
right
way, otherwise use a relay server
SHOULD be blamed? Yes. But the blame will fall on the mail admin.
"T
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 23:12:56 Samuel Sappa wrote:
> Sorry if this question already asked,
Lots of times.
> I'm configuring postfix for SMTP AUTH with dovecot and here's my
> main.cf configuration
[snip]
> and if my client try to send email from outside the network in
> maillog, it's displa
Sorry if this question already asked,
I'm configuring postfix for SMTP AUTH with dovecot and here's my
main.cf configuration
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
debug_pee
Hi All,
I want to do a test with postfix.
For example, I will relay many mails to postfix and postfix delivery maiils to
mda.
But you know, mda may not be stable enough, so mda would not work occasionally.
At this time, the postfix would bounce mails, I can not hope to see it.
So, how to forb
As I understand it, special_result_attribute is expected to be a DN
type, since it then uses the results of that to look up the DNs
referenced, trying to find result_attribute under them. It wouldn't be
valid to have rfc822member listen in special_result_attribute.
Adrian
Thomas wrote:
Re,
Re,
# cat /etc/postfix/groups.cf
server_host = ldap.domain.com
version = 3
search_base = ou=groups,ou=mail,dc=domain,dc=com
query_filter =
(&(objectClass=qmailGroup)(|(mail=%s)(mailAlternateAddress=%s)))
result_attribute = rfc822member
special_result_attribute = dnmember
leaf_result_attribute
Hi,
I followed and read LDAP_README about groups. Everything works well
_EXCEPT_ for the simplest case of a group made only of memberaddr (email
only). The group's email is part of the result which obviously becomes a
loop back. The configuration only works correctly if a memberdn is
present
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
I raise this question here because it appears the basic
postgrey daemon is running
I have a F
And that is as vague as it gets! :-)
I've been looking and searching but just can't seem to find what I'm
looking for.
I need to configure Postfix (and sasl?) so a select group of users from
multiple domains can send email. Originally it was to allow some
users/domains to send email from (
Jason Hirsh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
I raise this question here because it appears the basic postgrey
daemon is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dov
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
Based on above changes i have ths now
postgrey 651 0.0 2.4 14384 12028 ?? Is3:24PM 0:00.04
/usr/local/sbin/postgrey --pidfile=/var/run/postgrey.pid
--inet=127.0.0.1:10023 -d --user=postgrey --group=po
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
I raise this question here because it appears the basic
postgrey daemon is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dovecot
to which i a
I attached the logs and an e-mail
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: postmaster
Delivered-To: fake...@fakessh.eu
Received: by r13151.ovh.net (Postfix) id C5BC91CAD5; Tue, 4 Aug 2009
21:53:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:53:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: mailer-dae...@r13151.ovh.net (Mail Deliv
Jason Hirsh wrote:
> Based on above changes i have ths now
>
> postgrey 651 0.0 2.4 14384 12028 ?? Is3:24PM 0:00.04
> /usr/local/sbin/postgrey --pidfile=/var/run/postgrey.pid
> --inet=127.0.0.1:10023 -d --user=postgrey --group=postgrey
> --dbdir=/var/db/postgrey -verbose (perl5.8.9)
>
>
On 8/4/2009, Dave (dave.meh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> For reject_unverified_sender what would be a
> better way of dealing with it?
Only use it for domains which you control or have agreements with...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Jason Hirsh wrote:
I raise this question here because it appears the basic postgrey
daemon is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dovecot to
which i added Postgrey
I have postgrey runnng as a ps aux grep | postfix sh
Thomas Gelf schrieb:
> brian moore wrote:
>> There is always the "AOL Rule".
>
> Yeah, we are sometimes also using AOL as an example, even if where I
> live nearly nobody is using it...
>
>> (Hotmail and Gmail have similar rules, I just don't know where they
>> spell them out.)
>
> Hotmail: http
Jason Hirsh wrote:
I raise this question here because it appears the basic postgrey daemon
is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dovecot to which
i added Postgrey
I have postgrey runnng as a ps aux grep | postfix shows
postgrey 653 0.0 2.4 14384 12052 ??
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:01:12 -0500
> Von: "/dev/rob0"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Question regarding Restriction Classes
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 07:48:12 Steve wrote:
> > I have a problem with restriction classes that I can't solve
Quoting Jason Hirsh :
I raise this question here because it appears the basic postgrey
daemon is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dovecot to
which i added Postgrey
I have postgrey runnng as a ps aux grep | postfix shows
postgrey 653 0.0 2.4 14384 1205
I raise this question here because it appears the basic postgrey
daemon is running
I have a FReebsd 7.0 server with Postfix, amavisd-new, Dovecot to
which i added Postgrey
I have postgrey runnng as a ps aux grep | postfix shows
postgrey 653 0.0 2.4 14384 12052 ?? Is1:53PM 0:
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 07:48:12 Steve wrote:
> I have a problem with restriction classes that I can't solve. I have a
> bunch of restriction classes. In order to simplify this mail I am only
> using two. One for SPF checking and the other for Greylisting. Now I would
> like to have for each of t
brian moore wrote:
> There is always the "AOL Rule".
Yeah, we are sometimes also using AOL as an example, even if where I
live nearly nobody is using it...
> (Hotmail and Gmail have similar rules, I just don't know where they
> spell them out.)
Hotmail: http://postmaster.msn.com/Guidelines.aspx
Dave wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. For reject_unverified_sender what would be a
better way of dealing with it?
Thanks.
Dave.
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#forged_sender
Or decide if it really offers much value to your filtering.
Most mail that would be r
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:42:03 +0200
Thomas Gelf wrote:
> e) we are a really small ISP, but the largest one in our region. Two
>years ago we decided to be less permissive - and we had to dedicate
>ressources to teach people what they are doing wrong. The result
> has been, that other provid
Hello,
Thanks for your reply. I have not added any services to master.cf.
Thanks a lot.
Dave.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:59 PM
To: postfix-users@
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. For reject_unverified_sender what would be a
better way of dealing with it?
Thanks.
Dave.
-Original Message-
From: Noel Jones [mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:02 PM
To: dave.meh...@gmail.com; postfix-users@postfix.org
Su
Lukas Ruf wrote:
# This is the access filter file for mail.securitysage.com, published by
SecuritySage
# This filter is the work of Jeffrey Posluns
These header checks are no longer maintained. I strongly
suggest you *remove them all* unless you fully understand what
they do.
and beside
Dave wrote:
Hello,
I'm adjusting my postfix configuration to try to cut down on the spam i'm
getting. I have noticed an event in my maillog that has me concerned that
i'm now inadvertently an open relay. If this is so i'd like to fix it.
Here's the error:
Aug 4 11:18:12 postfix/smtp[22025]: 48
* Dave :
> Hello,
> I'm adjusting my postfix configuration to try to cut down on the spam i'm
> getting. I have noticed an event in my maillog that has me concerned that
> i'm now inadvertently an open relay. If this is so i'd like to fix it.
> Here's the error:
>
> Aug 4 11:18:12 postfix/smtp[2
* Dave :
> Hello,
> I'm adjusting my postfix configuration to try to cut down on the spam i'm
> getting. I have noticed an event in my maillog that has me concerned that
> i'm now inadvertently an open relay. If this is so i'd like to fix it.
> Here's the error:
>
> Aug 4 11:18:12 postfix/smtp[2
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
Mikael Bak wrote:
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
every email, because every single email he receives could be really
important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
other hand I have users
Hello,
I'm adjusting my postfix configuration to try to cut down on the spam i'm
getting. I have noticed an event in my maillog that has me concerned that
i'm now inadvertently an open relay. If this is so i'd like to fix it.
Here's the error:
Aug 4 11:18:12 postfix/smtp[22025]: 48A91150900A8:
t
Andrew Long wrote:
I apologize if this is a dupe post, but my client was not showing my
previous post properly...
Perhaps I left out a detail. There is actually a third mx in dns,
which is THIS postfix machine. Although
[gmail eats your own posts from the list as a duplicate, so
you won't se
I apologize if this is a dupe post, but my client was not showing my
previous post properly...
Perhaps I left out a detail. There is actually a third mx in dns,
which is THIS postfix machine. Although
$ host -t mx domain.com
domain.com mail is handled by 20 domain.com.bak-mx.smtpblah.com.
domain.
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:19:10 Hose wrote:
>
> We currently use the default recipient_delimiter of '+', but I've been
> receiving requests to change it to a '.' as some sites will not
> sanity-check properly with the plus, but will do it with the period. Is
> there an easy way to migrate from
I just changed the password. sorry I'm r13151.ovh.net
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:16:52 +0200 (CEST), mailer-dae...@r13151.ovh.net
(Mail Delivery System) wrote:
> Transcript of session follows.
>
> Out: 220 r13151.ovh.net ESMTP Postfix (2.5.1)
> In: HELO 6.mail-out.ovh.net
> Out: 250 r13151.ovh.ne
Hi,
We currently use the default recipient_delimiter of '+', but I've been
receiving requests to change it to a '.' as some sites will not
sanity-check properly with the plus, but will do it with the period. Is
there an easy way to migrate from one to the other such as enabling both
as a delimite
Dear MrC
> MrC [2009-08-04 17:53]:
>
> On 8/4/2009 1:02 AM, Lukas Ruf wrote:
>
>>> On Monday 03 August 2009 15:34:59 Lukas Ruf wrote:
I cannot understand why Postfix/cleanup rejects particular Subject
lines, since I have been searching for the respective regexps but
haven't found w
I just changed the password. sorry i'am r13151.ovh.net
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:06:42 +0200 (CEST), mailer-dae...@r13151.ovh.net
(Mail Delivery System) wrote:
> Transcript of session follows.
>
> Out: 220 r13151.ovh.net ESMTP Postfix (2.5.1)
> In: HELO 6.mail-out.ovh.net
> Out: 250 r13151.ovh.n
Simon Waters wrote:
> I have on my personal server for recipients:
> permit_sasl_authenticated,
> permit_mynetworks,
>
>
> reject_unauth_destination
>
> Which I think is pretty typical, but there is proabbly no right way.
>
Some would consider this less than optimal for checking rbls
Lukas,
On 8/4/2009 1:02 AM, Lukas Ruf wrote:
On Monday 03 August 2009 15:34:59 Lukas Ruf wrote:
I cannot understand why Postfix/cleanup rejects particular Subject
lines, since I have been searching for the respective regexps but
haven't found what I've been looking for. My question is simple:
Thanks very much Simon, Ralf and Brian
Much appreciated and i shall continue to read everyone's postings to stay up to
date on the requirements
John
- Original Message
From: Simon Waters
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:30:37 AM
Subject
Hello,
Thank you for your suggestions. I will make the changes. Any other
suggestions welcome.
Thanks.
Dave.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Bäck
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:39 AM
T
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:08:06 John King wrote:
>
> My question is - based on several postings where people advise that x line
> should precede y line or be listed after z - with regards to the auth
> sections and recipient restrictions etc etc... Is there a set order in
> which these elemts sh
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Stefan Förster wrote:
> I know that if a "owner-" alias is present, alias expansion isn't done
> on every delivery attempt but instead the alias is expanded and the
> result of that expansion is saved, at least according to this thread:
>
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/a
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> Mikael Bak wrote:
>> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>>
>>> Mikael Bak wrote:
>>>
Santiago Romero wrote:
> Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
> all mail when primary MX doesn't answer
* Brian Evans - Postfix List :
> Understand that Postfix does not evaluate line order.
unless in smtpd_*_restrictions
> The most critical restriction is reject_unauth_destination. Placement
> of check_recipient_access or check_sender access before this in
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions *may* le
John King wrote:
> All, please forgive this question if it seems to be a silly one
>
> I regard most of the posters to this forum as being experts and truly vaule
> the information found in your responses to questions and threads. I am a
> consultant trying to provide secure email services to
Mikael Bak wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>
>> Mikael Bak wrote:
>>
>>> Santiago Romero wrote:
>>>
>>>
Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
Any idea? :?
All, please forgive this question if it seems to be a silly one
I regard most of the posters to this forum as being experts and truly vaule the
information found in your responses to questions and threads. I am a consultant
trying to provide secure email services to my clients and am lookin
* Karl-Johan Karlsson :
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>> Thanks! That (or, rather, "owner-root: somebody") gives the result I
>>> want. I only wonder... why? I can't find much documentation on the
>>> "owner-"-aliases, and none of it manages to explain this behaviour.
>>
>>
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Thanks! That (or, rather, "owner-root: somebody") gives the result I
> > want. I only wonder... why? I can't find much documentation on the
> > "owner-"-aliases, and none of it manages to explain this behaviour.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/alias
> Thanks! That (or, rather, "owner-root: somebody") gives the result I want. I
> only wonder... why? I can't find much documentation on the "owner-"-aliases,
> and none of it manages to explain this behaviour.
http://www.postfix.org/aliases.5.html
In addition, when an alias exists for owner-nam
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Karl-Johan Karlsson :
> > How can I get Postfix to just re-attempt delivery to the user over quota,
> > not the others?
> >
> > aliases:
> > syslog-all: root
> > root: user1,useroverquota,user2,user3,user4,user5,user6,user7
>
> ad
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> Mikael Bak wrote:
>> Santiago Romero wrote:
>>
>>> Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
>>> all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
>>>
>>> Any idea? :?
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Quoting the documentation[1]:
On Tuesday, August 04, 2009 at 10:17 CEST,
Dave wrote:
[...]
> disable_vrfy_command = yes
Doesn't hurt, but I hope you realize that it doesn't really buy you
anything either since anyone can determine valid recipients via the
RCPT TO response.
[...]
> smtpd_banner = $myhostname
No, don'
Mikael Bak wrote:
> Santiago Romero wrote:
>
>> Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
>> all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
>>
>> Any idea? :?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> Quoting the documentation[1]:
>
> "The unverified_recipient_defer_code pa
> It would look like Ralf already showed you. But if you are sending to
> example.org which has the two MX RRs, then there is no need to configure
> transport maps. If you do use transport maps, the lack of brackets around
> the nexthop means Postfix will use MX lookups when deciding which nexthop
Hi,
I have a problem with restriction classes that I can't solve. I have a bunch of
restriction classes. In order to simplify this mail I am only using two. One
for SPF checking and the other for Greylisting. Now I would like to have for
each of the restriction classes a bunch of conditions to
* Karl-Johan Karlsson :
> I'm having a problem with Postfix 2.4.6, built from source on Solaris 10.
>
> Locally delivered mail is placed in maildirs on an NFS-imported disk. The NFS
> server uses file system quotas. Using alias_maps, mail for root is sent to
> several users.
>
> When one of the e
I'm having a problem with Postfix 2.4.6, built from source on Solaris 10.
Locally delivered mail is placed in maildirs on an NFS-imported disk. The NFS
server uses file system quotas. Using alias_maps, mail for root is sent to
several users.
When one of the expanded recipients goes over quota, Po
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Andrew Long wrote:
$ host -t mx charite.de
charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
and then use:
domain.de charite.de
I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
dns f
* Andrew Long :
> > $ host -t mx charite.de
> > charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
> > charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
> >
> > and then use:
> >
> > domain.de charite.de
>
> I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
> dns for t
Thanks very much.
> $ host -t mx charite.de
> charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
> charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
>
> and then use:
>
> domain.de charite.de
I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
dns for the domain, a la
$ host -t mx domain
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Paweł Ch. wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150 users
> in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active Directory to
> authentification. Could you tell me what is the consequencies of making that
> chan
* Andrew Long :
> I would like to define two relay hosts for one domain in our transport
> map, the primary and backup MTX so postfix will try the backup if the
> primary does not respond. Is this possible and what would be my
> syntax?
Use dns
like:
$ host -t mx charite.de
charite.de mail is han
I would like to define two relay hosts for one domain in our transport
map, the primary and backup MTX so postfix will try the backup if the
primary does not respond. Is this possible and what would be my
syntax?
domain.com smtp:[pri-mx.domain.com] smtp:[bak-mx.domain.com]
or
domain.com
> 2. I know that communication between Exchange and Outlook is
> with MAPI protocol. Does Postfix use the MAPI protocol?
> 3. If 2 is no, Is Postfix POP or IMAP server? I would like to
> use POP or IMAP protocol instead MAPI.
> 4. Is this possible that Postfix has a "Outlook calendar"
> feature and
Paweł Ch. schrieb:
> Hello,
> I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150
> users in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active
> Directory to authentification. Could you tell me what is the
> consequencies of making that change.
>
> Especialy I would lik
www.postfix.org
www.google.com
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Paweł Ch. wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150 users
> in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active Directory to
> authentification. Could you tell me what is the co
* Paweł Ch. :
> Hello,
> I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150 users
> in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active Directory to
> authentification. Could you tell me what is the consequencies of making that
> change.
>
> Especialy I would like to
Hello,
I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150 users
in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active Directory to
authentification. Could you tell me what is the consequencies of making that
change.
Especialy I would like to know:
1. Is Postfix cooperat
Hello,
I want to _change_ MsExchange to Postfix in my corporation. I have 150 users
in my network. They work in Outlook 2003. We are using Active Directory to
authentification. Could you tell me what is the consequencies of making that
change.
Especialy I would like to know:
1. Is Postfix cooperat
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 11:44 +0200, Robin Smidsrød wrote:
> Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > Please find attached the header_checks file currently in use:
> >
> > When I comment the line in main.cf
> > header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
> > everything works for me as expected.
Mikael Bak wrote:
> Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>> I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
>> every email, because every single email he receives could be really
>> important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
>> other hand I have users that don't
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 04:17 -0400, Dave wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm trying to adjust my current antispam measures as they are no
> longer working. I'm running postfix 2.3 on a rel5 machine. I've got the
> below, which is a postconf -n output of my current configuration. To it i'd
> like to add spf,
Lukas Ruf wrote:
> Please find attached the header_checks file currently in use:
>
> When I comment the line in main.cf
> header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
> everything works for me as expected. Thus, I strongly assume there
> must be a bug somewhere in the defi
LuKreme wrote:
> No, you're still not understanding.
>
> Say you have a ... oh, I dunno, a DHCP server/router that your entire
> office network plugs into. And say it has a feature, as so many do, to
> send alerts via email if say the uplink goes down. Now, that email
> configuration is very primi
Santiago Romero wrote:
>
> Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
> all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
>
> Any idea? :?
>
Hi,
Quoting the documentation[1]:
"The unverified_recipient_defer_code parameter (default 450) specifies
the num
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>
> I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
> every email, because every single email he receives could be really
> important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
> other hand I have users that don't really care one way o
Hello,
I'm trying to adjust my current antispam measures as they are no
longer working. I'm running postfix 2.3 on a rel5 machine. I've got the
below, which is a postconf -n output of my current configuration. To it i'd
like to add spf, and postgrey support in smtpd_recipient_restrictions a
Dear all
> /dev/rob0 [2009-08-03 23:05]:
>
> On Monday 03 August 2009 15:34:59 Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > I cannot understand why Postfix/cleanup rejects particular Subject
> > lines, since I have been searching for the respective regexps but
> > haven't found what I've been looking for. My question
If you want this behavior, do not use reject_unverified*.
Instead, use a relay_recipient_maps that can be checked locally.
Hi.
This server is a secondary MX server for our customers. Those customers
have their own "private" primary MX servers, so It's not possible for me
to have a local
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Monday 03 August 2009 07:58:48 Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>> I'm just trying to figure out what to write in a policy document about
>> this behaviour. A behaviour which is backed by a RFC has a lot of more
>> weight (conserning interoperability) than our own policies about what is
88 matches
Mail list logo
