Deeztek.com Support:
> On February 22, 2013 3:40:22 PM Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >
> > > >b...@example.com smtp:[1.1.1.1]
> > > >m...@example.com smtp:[2.2.2.2]
> > > >example.com smtp:somewhere.else
> > >
> > > So
On February 22, 2013 3:40:22 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >b...@example.com smtp:[1.1.1.1]
> >m...@example.com smtp:[2.2.2.2]
> >example.com smtp:somewhere.else
>
> Sorry about the top-posting. Okay this is a little bi
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >b...@example.com smtp:[1.1.1.1]
> >m...@example.com smtp:[2.2.2.2]
> >example.com smtp:somewhere.else
>
> Sorry about the top-posting. Okay this is a little bit closer. So,
> I'm assuming if I use the domain in conjuc
On 2/22/2013 2:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/22/2013 1:07 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. This is what i want to do:
I want to be able to route e-mail send to b...@somedomain.com to
1.1.1.1 however, I also want to be able to route e-mail send to
m...@somedomain
On 2/22/2013 1:07 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. This is what i want to do:
>
> I want to be able to route e-mail send to b...@somedomain.com to
> 1.1.1.1 however, I also want to be able to route e-mail send to
> m...@somedomain.com to 2.2.2.2. I do normally us
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. This is what i want to do:
I want to be able to route e-mail send to b...@somedomain.com to 1.1.1.1
however, I also want to be able to route e-mail send to
m...@somedomain.com to 2.2.2.2. I do normally use transports but in this
case, I need to be able to fil
On 2/22/2013 12:39 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> I'm trying to accomplish the following:
>
> I'm trying to filter e-mail based on the to: field using a regexp
> header_checks file as follows:
>
> /^To: some...@somedomain.com/ FILTER smtp:192.xxx.xxx.xxx
>
> I thought with the above expression
I'm trying to accomplish the following:
I'm trying to filter e-mail based on the to: field using a regexp
header_checks file as follows:
/^To: some...@somedomain.com/ FILTER smtp:192.xxx.xxx.xxx
I thought with the above expression it would take the e-mail and deliver
to the 192.xxx.xxx.xxx a
Viktor Dukhovni:
> All delivery agents are "private" while "pickup", "qmgr", "flush"
> and "showq" are "public" to support postdrop(1) and postqueue(1)
> and their sendmail(1) interfaces. Almost everything else is private,
> except for cleanup(8) which AFAIK is public only for historical
> reasons.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:33:53AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 08:48:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > We are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
> > > > 2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same f
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:04:34AM +0100, Erik Slagter wrote:
First, a quick comment, all of the sturm and drang in this thread
is the result of a peculiar reluctance of most users to heed the
advice in MULTI_INSTANCE_README and simplify their configurations
by handling each distinct message flow
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 08:48:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > We are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
> > > 2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
> > >
> > > host[1-4].example.com
> > >
> > > As I d
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 08:48:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > We are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
> > 2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
> >
> > host[1-4].example.com
> >
> > As I did not want to specify all of the
Am 22.02.2013 16:09, schrieb Geoff Shang:
> I also verified that a known working configuration also seems to not check
> virtual_mailbox_maps when processing
> mail submitted via /usr/sbin/sendmail. It resulted in a bounce message.
>
> So I was wondering if this is expected behaviour or not
su
Hi,
I guess the following makes sence. I was just wondering if this is
intended behaviour, and if so, why.
As I posted in my previous messages, I'm setting up mail for a mail
hosting solution that will host any number of domains. The mail itself
will be scanned on another box and stored on
Jan P. Kessler:
> Dear list,
>
> we are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
> 2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
>
> host[1-4].example.com
>
> As I did not want to specify all of these domains in our tls_policy
> file, I wante
Jose Borges Ferreira:
[about sending 8-bit envelope into non-UTF8SMTP MTA]
> Is this the expected behaviour ? shouldn't the local part ( jos? ) be
> forbidden ? Is there a way sanitize the address ?
Postfix currently does not announce UTF8SMTP support. Therefore, a
client that sends 8-bit address
Dear list,
we are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
host[1-4].example.com
As I did not want to specify all of these domains in our tls_policy
file, I wanted to ask if there is any option to
After reading this email i was under the impression that Postfix wont
deal with UTF8 email addresses and made the test to check it out.
Test was made with Postfix Version: 2.9.3-2~12.04.4 ( default config
included in Ubuntu server 12.04)
220 lab10.anubis.via ESMTP Postfix (Ubuntu)
HELO lab16
250 l
On 21-02-13 20:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> [ ... ] (lot of patronising text removed)
4. Therefore, you need multiple "smtpd" "pass" services for "postscreen"
to hand the connection to. The postscreen(8) manual page refers you to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_service
20 matches
Mail list logo
