> With Postfix 3, chroot is no longer the default. It remains an
> available option for people who want to go through the effort.
>
> Wietse
Yes, but that wasn't my question. Again, my question was:
I'm configuring master.cf to add amavisd-new. The amavisd-new documentation
(/usr/share/d
Hi!
Right! Remove permit_sasl_authenticated and keep check_sasl_access
hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_list
Thanks! It works!
MJ
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:02:18AM +0200, mj wrote:
> > Far simpler:
> >
> >indexed = ${default_database_type}:${config_directory}/
> >smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks,
> > check_sasl_access ${indexed}sasl_list,
> > reject_unauth_destination
> >
>
Hi Viktor!
Thanks for the quick reply!
On 08/11/2017 11:37 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Far simpler:
indexed = ${default_database_type}:${config_directory}/
smtpd_relay_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
check_sasl_access ${indexed}sasl_list,
reject_unauth_destin
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:20:35PM +0200, mj wrote:
> I would like to only allow sasl authenticated relay for specific users, so I
> have in main.cf:
>
> smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, check_sasl_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_list,
>
> and in /etc/postfix/sasl_list:
> userna
Hi,
I would like to only allow sasl authenticated relay for specific users,
so I have in main.cf:
smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, check_sasl_access
hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_list,
and in /etc/postfix/sasl_list:
username1 OK
username2 REJECT
username3 OK
* REJECT
The config w
On 8/11/2017 4:44 AM, Mai Ling wrote:
> the primary mx is not refusing *me* the postifx box, it's refusing
> connections initiated by me from one of the two IP address.
>
> Do the RFCs handle such cases? (fallback to a different
> smtp_bind_address)
> Does postfix have some round-robin or fallback
Michael Fox:
> > The default master.cf as distributed by postfix has all services as
> > chroot "n", and that is the recommended setting.
> > -- Noel Jones
>
> Thanks Noel.
>
> Interesting. From
> http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html#chroot_setup, the
> recommendation seems to
On 10.08.17 20:06, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:42:44PM +, Fazzina, Angelo wrote:
I would think they both work for backwards compatibility and over time
"service postfix reload" will eventually be depreciated and no longer be a
valid command.
Well. "postfix reload" != "
the primary mx is not refusing *me* the postifx box, it's refusing connections
initiated by me from one of the two IP address.
Do the RFCs handle such cases? (fallback to a different smtp_bind_address)
Does postfix have some round-robin or fallback choice of smtp_bind_address?
that is what I am doing right now & waiting for an answer from ISP for
request to allocate a different, «clean» reputation IP address.
>
> On aug. 10, 2017 at 11:45 p.m., mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/10/2017 12:29 PM, Mai Ling
11 matches
Mail list logo
