On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:19:34PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
> Thanks for your help Victor.
>
> make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
> -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"dovecot\" \
> -DDEF_COMMAND_DIR=\"/usr/local/sbin\" \
> -DDEF_CONFIG_DIR=\"/usr/local/etc
> On 14 Oct 2014, at 4:13 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:16:17PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
>
>>> Victor, changing the order so that it is:
>>>
>>> make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
>>> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
>>> -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"d
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:16:17PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
> > Victor, changing the order so that it is:
> >
> > make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> > CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
> > -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"dovecot\" \
> > -DDEF_COMMAND_DIR=\"/usr/local/sbin\" \
> > -DDEF_
> On 17 Jul 2014, at 11:41 am, James Brown wrote:
>
>
>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 5:10 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:49:49PM +1000, James Brown wrote:
>>
>>> So change to:
>>>
>>> AUXLIBS=?-L/usr/local/lib -llber -lresolv -L/usr/lib ? ?
>>
>> Something like that
On 10/13/2014 04:54 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> If there is a better way to deal with this nuisance than resorting to
> stricter authentication protocols, I would love to hear alternate
> suggestions. [php direct mailing]
Have you considered adding "system" to the list of disallowed function
calls?
On 10/13/2014 6:54 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Is it possible to require authentication based on specific properties of
> an MUA or its connection?
>
> I would like to require all connections that originate from the php-fpm
> daemon (or its children) on the server in question to be forced
Hello!
Is it possible to require authentication based on specific properties of
an MUA or its connection?
I would like to require all connections that originate from the php-fpm
daemon (or its children) on the server in question to be forced to
authenticate when sending mail through Postfix.
At
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.11.2.html]
Bugfixes for Postfix 2.11, 2.10, 2.9 and 2.8:
* Fix for DMARC implementations based on SPF policy plus DKIM
Milter. The PREPEND access/policy action added headers ABOVE
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 06:30:56PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Is D.J.B. version 0.75 considered production ready or development?
>
> Yes. The code is stable. There is also Michael Tokarev's implementation.
Many users (myself included) use Michael Tokarev's Tinycdb.
--
Viktor.
Robert Lopez:
> Today is the first time I have paid any attention to CDB.
> In looking at it, questions come to mind:
> Is D.J.B. version 0.75 considered production ready or development?
Yes. The code is stable. There is also Michael Tokarev's implementation.
> Is the new database created with CD
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 03:35:09PM -0600, Robert Lopez wrote:
>
>> > Please see:
>> > http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html#safe_db
>>
>> The question "So these errors happen while the file is being rebuilt,
>> right?" is a very good
Wietse Venema:
> I have a version that reports the first and last non-empty, non-comment
> line numbers of a master.cf entry, or just one line number if the
> two are the same:
...
> But I'll drop the "last" line number because it is unnecessary given
> that we now have a precise start line number
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:20:41PM +0200, A. Schulze wrote:
>
> > >How would Postfix know that "relay" ends at line 2? Comments may
> > >appear IN THE MIDDLE of a master.cf entry.
> >
> > Technically correct.
> > I read "line 3" but should read "the entry starting somewhere an
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:48:14PM +0200, Lothar Gesslein wrote:
> > Just to make sure that I'm crystal clear however, let me ask: When you
> > say "terminated" what you are actually implying is just that the policy
> > server process receives EOF on stdin, correct?
>
> AFAIK normal unix process
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 08:48:56AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
>> about asking Postfix if the syntax of the address is valid and if the
>> DNS is set up suitably to be able to potentially be able to deliver
>> the messa
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:48:36 +0200
Markus Benning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:27:41AM -0300, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
> > Hi People!
> > Anyone has a good rule for postfix smtpd whit fail2ban?
> > Sorry for the OT:))
>
> The mtpolicyd policy daemon has a plugin for directly adding IPs
Lothar Gesslein:
> As far as I understand it, $max_use is counted/incremented by the
> postfix master daemon, for each new incoming connection (it is a
No, that is incorrect, as are all inferences based on this.
Wietse
Mike Cardwell:
> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
> about asking Postfix if the syntax of the address is valid and if the
> DNS is set up suitably to be able to potentially be able to deliver
> the message. I.e, are there valid MX records etc. That is how Exim
>
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:27:41AM -0300, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
> Hi People!
> Anyone has a good rule for postfix smtpd whit fail2ban?
> Sorry for the OT:))
The mtpolicyd policy daemon has a plugin for directly adding IPs to
a fail2ban target without the logging/parsing.
It directly uses the
On 10/10/2014 07:36 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Thank you. What you have written above does in fact clarify things a
> good deal more.
>
> Just to make sure that I'm crystal clear however, let me ask: When you
> say "terminated" what you are actually implying is just that the policy
> serve
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:22:38PM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Address verification is always a guess. You're assuming that by address
>> verification I'm talking about actually connecting to the remote SMTP
>> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
>> ab
Am 13.10.2014 um 12:12 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:51:04AM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"send
Am 13.10.2014 um 11:45 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
> Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
> delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
>
> With Exim installed, I could just do a
> "sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
> With
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:51:04AM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
>> delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
>>
>> With Exim installed, I could just do a
>> "sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" a
Am 13.10.2014 um 11:45 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
With Postfix i
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
With Postfix installed, the exit code is always 0 and the resul
Le 10/10/2014 06:40, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit :
In message <20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
man page resulted in
On 2014-10-10 16:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jan P. Kessler:
Or what the limitations are.
>>> Note that you can not return different results for different
>>> recipients at data or end_of_data stage. You can only pass or reject
>>> the whole mail at all.
>>>
>> p.s. the policy server example
28 matches
Mail list logo
