LuKreme:
>
> I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7)
> and am looking into enabling postscreen. I've read the
> http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it
> looks like I should replace my old rbi checks with the new
> postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but wh
I've just updated my postfix install to 2.8 patch 14 (from 2.7) and am looking
into enabling postscreen. I've read the
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html document, and it looks like I
should replace my old rbi checks with the new postscreen_dnsbl_sites value, but
what about some of
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 04:30:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > My best guess is that Wietse will likely adopt something functionally
> > > equivalent wrt the compile-time override for DEF_MAIL_OWNER and
> > > DEF_SGID_GROUP.
> >
> > No override is needed.
> >
> > You c
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:01:54PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> I think it would be more consistent to also allow mail_owner and
> setgid_group to have appropriate compile-time defaults for the
> target platform whether installing locally, or building packages.
>
> That said, the OP can of cou
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 04:30:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > My best guess is that Wietse will likely adopt something functionally
> > equivalent wrt the compile-time override for DEF_MAIL_OWNER and
> > DEF_SGID_GROUP.
>
> No override is needed.
>
> You can trivially set these at installat
Wietse Venema:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:17:53PM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
> >
> > > Will your patch be added to main source tree at any time, or is it
> > > something I'll need to tweak/modify & apply when I upgrade?
> >
> > My best guess is that Wietse will likely ad
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:17:53PM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
>
> > Will your patch be added to main source tree at any time, or is it
> > something I'll need to tweak/modify & apply when I upgrade?
>
> My best guess is that Wietse will likely adopt something functionally
>
Am 06.04.2013 21:22, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> Since the OP is installing into /usr/local, a non-packaged version
> is fine. I would go further and install into:
>
> /usr/local/postfix/${version}/{etc,sbin,libexec,man,html}/
>
> with "sendmail", "mailq" and "newaliases" in
>
> /u
Am 06.04.2013 21:22, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>> (1) I'm no longer intersted in someone's 'downstream idea' of what
>>> version and how I should configure, build & use postfix
>>
>> what exactly did you not understand in "based
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Will your patch be added to main source tree at any time, or is it
> > something I'll need to tweak/modify & apply when I upgrade?
>
> My best guess is that Wietse will likely adopt something functionally
> equivalent wrt the compile-tim
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:17:53PM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
> Will your patch be added to main source tree at any time, or is it
> something I'll need to tweak/modify & apply when I upgrade?
My best guess is that Wietse will likely adopt something functionally
equivalent wrt the compile-time
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > (1) I'm no longer intersted in someone's 'downstream idea' of what
> > version and how I should configure, build & use postfix
>
> what exactly did you not understand in "based on"?
No need to hammer your point in. There's more
Hi Viktor,
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> You can either create a "postdrop" group, or with the patch re-use the
> existing "maildrop" group, which makes it easier to transition between
> the system and your custom Postfix, since file permissions will be the
> same. I r
Huh?
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you missed COMPLETLY what i saied
Well there's ONE thing you said that makes some sense ...
Am 06.04.2013 20:25, schrieb ixlo...@sent.at:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and why do you not build a package based on your distros one?
>
> Because
>
> (1) I'm no longer intersted in someone's 'downstream idea' of what
> version and how I should configure, build
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and why do you not build a package based on your distros one?
Because
(1) I'm no longer intersted in someone's 'downstream idea' of what
version and how I should configure, build & use postfix.
(2) I've had enough of being told "go talk to
Viktor,
Thanks for the answers. I thing I have what I need for now; I'll give
it a try in a but.
Thanks!
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:53:54AM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
>
> > > I am attaching a patch for "MacOSX", where a bare-metal "
Am 06.04.2013 19:53, schrieb ixlo...@sent.at:
> make upgrade
> ...
> make: Nothing to be done for `update'.
> /bin/sh postfix-install -non-interactive
> postfix-install: Error: "postdrop" needs an entry in the group
> file.
> Remember, "postdrop" needs a dedica
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:53:54AM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
> > I am attaching a patch for "MacOSX", where a bare-metal "make
> > upgrade" with no main.cf fails, because Apple defines "postfix" as
> > a nickname for "_postfix" and "postdrop" as a nickname for "_postdrop",
> > so with default
Hi
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:25:28AM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
>
> > "The non-interactive version ("make upgrade") needs the
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf file from a previous installation.
>
> It works just fine without one. If you don
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:25:28AM -0700, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
> "The non-interactive version ("make upgrade") needs the
> /etc/postfix/main.cf file from a previous installation.
It works just fine without one. If you don't want to build a package,
but want non-interactive installation, that's
Hi,
I'm finally taking the plunge and moving from distro-pacakged Postfix to
building from source.
I'm reading INSTALL.html
4.4 - Overriding built-in parameter default settings
All Postfix configuration parameters can be changed by editing a Postfix
configuration file, except for one: the param
Giorgio Luchi:
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> We are an Italian Telco/ISP company, so we offer outgoing SMTP
> service to our customers.
> For this service, we have always thought that the best way to pick
> up messages from the queue, it is to do round-robin based on IP
> (or authenticated user if
LinkedIn
Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn.
-Pablo
Pablo Sánchez
Director Comercial en Grupo Dixis
Illes Balears, España
Confirma que conoces a Pablo Sánchez:
https://www.linkedin.com/e/ekybff-hf6rsycc-3l/isd/12241083068/55dEvnPW/?hs=false&tok=2Hn7GHGqmocRI1
Solved it :-)
When sending to unknown users, Postfix now rejects the mail with "User
unknown in virtual mailbox table", and it does so for hosted (that is,
virtual mailbox domains) domains as well.
It seems the SRS-daemon* I have been using with the main.cf parameters
recipient_canonical_maps
rec
Thanks for your reply.
We are an Italian Telco/ISP company, so we offer outgoing SMTP service to our
customers.
For this service, we have always thought that the best way to pick up messages
from the queue, it is to do round-robin based on IP (or authenticated user if
used) of the sender, to ob
26 matches
Mail list logo
