On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:11:15PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >Duplicates arise when multiple lists have common recipients, and
> >whether these lead to multiple deliveries or not depends mostly on
> >enable_original_recipient.
>
> That's not really what we're seeing. What we are seeing
--On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:03 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
>> Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
>> postco
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> wrote:
>
> >>Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
> >>postconf, or -o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings requires
> >>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:00:08AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
> >transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
> >content multiple times.
>
> Hi Viktor,
>
> Thanks for the reply! I've been on vacat
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
postconf, or -o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings requires
setting to resolve this so far.
Hm, so according to our clients setting default_des
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:01 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 2:56 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transp
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 2:56 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
content multi
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
content multiple times.
Hi Viktor,
Thanks for the reply! I've been on vacation so ca
Wietse Venema:
> This weekend I added preliminary support for JSON-formatted queue
> listings. See below for a fragment from the postqueue manpage.
...
> I need to clean up the code and add quoting for control characters
> etc. before it can be released.
The code is released as postfix-3.1-201511
--On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:42 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> Since this was implemented, we've had an issue where when emails with
> a large number of recipients are processed, the result is that the
> recipients get duplicates of the email. We found one workaround to
> this was
Hi,
May be you should not relay messages for "nobody" to "root"... How are you
doing this relaying? If you are using aliases, just delete the line
"nobody: root" and rerun postconf. It will be delivered locally, so you can
gain access to the emails. But it will not be delivered to root and
forward
Daniel Bray:
> Any suggestions on how to completely drop these types messages?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#notify_classes
Wietse
On 2015-11-30 14:14, Daniel Bray wrote:
> I've tried to configure the
> reject_unauth_destination and permit_sasl_authenticated for both
> smtpd_relay_restrictions and smtpd_recipient_restrictions, but the
> cleanup appears to still be taking over, and converting this into a
> legit email bound for
Hello list,
Our external pen testers are performing a specific type of scan on our
email servers, and it's generating a bit of spam. I'm trying to find a way
to block these messages, while still allowing the team to scan (meaning, I
can't just use iptables and block them). I have the following set
Hello
I want to do the following :
I've a domain A for all my users. For some users I have a domain B and I
would like to do this :
a) A user from domain B can send a mail only for another user of B
b) All mail from B use the certificate of domain B to crypt and sign mail
Can Postfix do that ?
On 30 Nov 2015, at 09:47, phil wrote:
Smells like a spammer to me, no subject, no body, 3 messages now all the same
in the last 5 minutes, surely they can't be that inept with email.
In that case, shut up! Don't add to the noise by posting to the list.
This is not going to achieve anything
On 30/11/2015 8:33 PM, wilfried.es...@essignetz.de wrote:
Am 30.11.2015 um 10:31 schrieb Андрей:
lists
Hi,
did you ever think about sending comands to majord...@postfix.org ?
Willi
Smells like a spammer to me, no subject, no body, 3 messages now all the
same in the last 5 minutes, su
Am 30.11.2015 um 10:31 schrieb Андрей:
> lists
>
Hi,
did you ever think about sending comands to majord...@postfix.org ?
Willi
lists
lists
lists
21 matches
Mail list logo
