Hello
I thought there was a means to restrict and/convert all the outgoing
mail that passes though postfix to specific domain names. I've noticed
that on several postfix installations that the sending domain name in
the envelopes From can be changed to almost anything. How do I
restrict it?
Ru
>
> That will work. Another solution is setting append_dot_mydomain=no,
> so that user@localhost will become u...@localhost.com.
>
Yes - I am confused by this a little bit. Why would postfix want to add
a dot com to any outgoing email?
Ruben
--
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI S
> > :) well, we people from brooklyn sometimes need to be told twice.
>
> I hope twice was enough. Add a correct "mydomain" setting to
> main.cf.
>
Yes and thanks for the explaination and the fix.
Ruben
> --
> Viktor.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Bro
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:02:21PM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
> RedHat calls "postfix set-permissions" and "postfix upgrade-configuration"
> in RPM %post scripts
What? postfix wasn't absorbed into systemd?
How is that possible?
Ruben
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:38:52AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > As for Debian, perhaps we can persuade LaMont to fix the Debian
> > package
>
> and
>
> > RedHat calls "postfix set-permissions" and "postfix
> > upgrade-configuration" in RPM %post scripts
>
> Why do distros ignore my safety net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27.09.2014 13:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
> These warnings are produced by the Cyrus SASL library.
Which could be recognizable and self-explanatory as well... Thanks for
the clearification.
- -Kalle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
iQE
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > > > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just usin
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just using
> >
> > postconf does not suppress parameters based on string compariso
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just using
>
> postconf does not suppress parameters based on string comparison.
> Instead, suppression is
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > +if ((config_dir = safe_getenv(CONF_ENV_PATH)) != 0 &&
> > > + strcmp(config_dir, DEF_CONFIG_DIR) != 0) {
> >
> > I prefer not to lie in software. Thus, config_dir will show up in
> > "postconf -n" outp
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > +if ((config_dir = safe_getenv(CONF_ENV_PATH)) != 0 &&
> > +strcmp(config_dir, DEF_CONFIG_DIR) != 0) {
>
> I prefer not to lie in software. Thus, config_dir will show up in
> "postconf -n" output when there is any override
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:41:08AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>
> > you read my mind. thanks for this detail.
>
> If nevertheless it is desirable to have "postconf -n" suppress any
> "external" value of "config_directory" for the primary instance,
> then the patch below ma
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:41:08AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> you read my mind. thanks for this detail.
If nevertheless it is desirable to have "postconf -n" suppress any
"external" value of "config_directory" for the primary instance,
then the patch below may do the job. It is not clear
On Sep 27, 2014, at 11.20, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:42:27AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>>> [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_directory
>>> config_directory = /etc/postfix
>>
>> You're welcome to fix that. I'm now working on other things,
>> supporting p
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.32, Wietse Venema wrote:
> b...@bitrate.net:
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
>>> the version, release date, and
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:42:27AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_directory
> > config_directory = /etc/postfix
>
> You're welcome to fix that. I'm now working on other things,
> supporting per-milter and per-policy service settings.
There's a subtle
On 9/27/2014 11:07 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
Would an updated postfinger command help? Wietse
Well... if it could provide the output I described, then certainly. The
suggestion for a new command was just to illustrate I was saying it
didn't have to be a postconf command
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in setti
Charles Marcus:
> On 9/27/2014 7:48 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
> wrote:
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on.
>
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> Plea
On 9/27/2014 7:48 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
the version, release date, and so on.
Thanks Wietse...
Please understand that what follows is jus
li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> i suppose the question was why it is part of "postconf -n"
> >> output while it is not mentioned in "main.cf" and so should
> >> only appear in "postconf -d"
> >>
> >> [root@mail-gw:~]$ cat main.cf | grep config_directory
> >> [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_direc
Am 27.09.2014 um 16:42 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>> Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
>>> b...@bitrate.net:
On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> configuration file, -d is
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on
li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > b...@bitrate.net:
> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> >>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> >>> the
Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> b...@bitrate.net:
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
>>> the version, release date, and so o
b...@bitrate.net:
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on.
>
> this reminds me - some time long ago, i ha
On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> the version, release date, and so on.
this reminds me - some time long ago, i happened to notice that
config_di
Karl-Philipp:
> Sep 27 05:20:46 richtercloud postfix/smtpd[14253]: warning: SASL
> authentication failure: cannot connect to saslauthd server: Access (rx)
> on /absolute/path/to/file/directory caused error
> "Permission denied"
Wrong mailing list. These warnings are produced by the Cyrus SASL
Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
the version, release date, and so on.
Wietse
Charles Marcus:
> I asked a long time ago if the postfix version could be added to the
> postconf -n output (like
Karl-Philipp:
[mail_owner GID bits]
These GID bits do not matter. Therefore it is not documented.
In the exceptional case that Postfix requires group permissions,
those permissions are cpntrolled by the setgid_group parameter.
As a general rule, Postfix manpages describe the things that are
nee
I asked a long time ago if the postfix version could be added to the
postconf -n output (like dovecot does), but was told it wasn't possible
for some technical reason I didn't understand...
On 9/26/2014 9:42 PM, Karl-Philipp wrote:
Hi together,
In order to figure out the version of a program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/09/14 12:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:50:24AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> .> In order to figure out the version of a program it is common
>> to make
>>> the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the
>>
32 matches
Mail list logo
