On 01/28/2014 12:38 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Andrzej A. Filip:
>> Do you plan to support SRV DNS records in a few years perspective?
>
> What real problem does this solve? Developer cycles are finite
> and must be spent wisely.
IMHO it would allow better configuration of (internet to internal)
--On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:40 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:02:45AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The patch below may not even compile, but probably works, give it a try.
As you can see, it is mostly a matter of adding a bit of documentation
and disabling c
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:02:45AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The patch below may not even compile, but probably works, give it a try.
> As you can see, it is mostly a matter of adding a bit of documentation
> and disabling conditionals that make existing code apply only to SMTP.
>
> If it w
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:51:20PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >The fallback relay setting is a fixed per-transport setting. So
> >the fallback relay would not be per-user. Only the first LMTP
> >server to try (per-user transport table). Each transport carries
> >a fixed fallback relay
Hi,
I have a few questions regarding redirection of mail with aliases and
virtual domains. Sometimes there are incoming messages which have the
actual FQDN of the machine as recipient, although they were sent to a
virtual domain.
I have the following setup:
- The machine has the FQDN foo.ext.bar
Andrzej A. Filip:
> Do you plan to support SRV DNS records in a few years perspective?
What real problem does this solve? Developer cycles are finite
and must be spent wisely.
Wietse
On 01/27/2014 09:37 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
>> As part of making Zimbra more robust, we're abstracting our data layer.
>> Currently, LMTP delivery is configured to point at a specific mailstore,
>> which accepts delivery and stores the email in a SQL database. As part of
--On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:45 PM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:38:01PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> Actually, that is not too difficult. Just specify a round-robin
>> name as the "lmtp_fallback_relay" (new feature). While adding SRV
>> support is tri
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:38:01PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >>Actually, that is not too difficult. Just specify a round-robin
> >>name as the "lmtp_fallback_relay" (new feature). While adding SRV
> >>support is tricky, adding "lmtp_fallback_relay" is I think quite
> >>simple.
> >
> >T
--On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:36 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:32 PM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
Actually, that is not too difficult. Just specify a round-robin
name as the "lmtp_fallback_relay" (new feature). While adding SRV
support is tricky,
--On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:32 PM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
Actually, that is not too difficult. Just specify a round-robin
name as the "lmtp_fallback_relay" (new feature). While adding SRV
support is tricky, adding "lmtp_fallback_relay" is I think quite
simple.
That would be cool
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:30:24PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >I agree that we hold off on new mechanisms until a need exists.
> >Equal-preference A records should solve 90% of the problem. By not
> >solving the remaining 10% at great effort, we can spend the limited
> >development cycles
--On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:54 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
I agree that we hold off on new mechanisms until a need exists.
Equal-preference A records should solve 90% of the problem. By not
solving the remaining 10% at great effort, we can spend the limited
development cycles more wisely
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:53:19PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > Before inventing new lookup mechanisms, have you considered the
> > > possibility of making the existing mechanisms available for LMTP?
> > >
> > > - Using multiple A records per name? If all hosts are equiv
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:53:19PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Before inventing new lookup mechanisms, have you considered the
> > possibility of making the existing mechanisms available for LMTP?
> >
> > - Using multiple A records per name? If all hosts are equivalent
> > that would be the
Wietse Venema:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> > As part of making Zimbra more robust, we're abstracting our data layer.
> > Currently, LMTP delivery is configured to point at a specific mailstore,
> > which accepts delivery and stores the email in a SQL database. As part of
> > the abstraction, we're
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:18:44PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> However, postfix LMTP seems to only take a single destination
> address (please correct me if I'm wrong. ;) ). A possible solution
> we've considered is requiring a load balancer be deployed between
> postfix and the mailstore
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> As part of making Zimbra more robust, we're abstracting our data layer.
> Currently, LMTP delivery is configured to point at a specific mailstore,
> which accepts delivery and stores the email in a SQL database. As part of
> the abstraction, we're moving to a SQL cluster,
As part of making Zimbra more robust, we're abstracting our data layer.
Currently, LMTP delivery is configured to point at a specific mailstore,
which accepts delivery and stores the email in a SQL database. As part of
the abstraction, we're moving to a SQL cluster, which means that LMTP
deliv
19 matches
Mail list logo
