Greetings, Patrick Ben Koetter!
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've attempted upgrade of my postfix docker container from alpine 3.8
>> (which has postfix 3.3.0) to alpine 3.9 (postfix 3.3.2). Perfectly working
>> config which just worked with 3.3.0 now causing SASL auth error: warning:
>> SASL authentication
It's my first time posting to a mailing list, my apologies.
I am using Postifix v3.1.0-3ubuntu0.3 on Ubuntu Xenial. The server is an
email relay server for our production network with each server being able to
connect if a) it's ip address is whitelisted or b) it uses smtp-auth when
connecting to
* sashk :
> Hi,
>
> I've attempted upgrade of my postfix docker container from alpine 3.8 (which
> has postfix 3.3.0) to alpine 3.9 (postfix 3.3.2). Perfectly working config
> which just worked with 3.3.0 now causing SASL auth error: warning: SASL
> authentication failure: No worthy mechs fou
Hi,
I've attempted upgrade of my postfix docker container from alpine 3.8 (which
has postfix 3.3.0) to alpine 3.9 (postfix 3.3.2). Perfectly working config
which just worked with 3.3.0 now causing SASL auth error: warning: SASL
authentication failure: No worthy mechs found
Here is verbose l
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 18:28 Wietse Venema Christopher R. Gabriel:
> > On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 09:35 -0700, angelo wrote:
> > > Hi Christopher,
> > > I'm on the opendkim list also and it does get little attention.
> >
> > Really? :)
> >
> > > Is the "delay" recorded in a typical Postfix log entry ?
>
On Friday, February 15, 2019 05:01:45 PM Christopher R. Gabriel wrote:
...
> The project seems a bit abandonware (no answers to bugs in years,
> repository almost stuck), and also recently orphaned by debian
> maintainer.
...
FYI, that was me. I orphaned it because I'm not using it anymore. As f
Christopher R. Gabriel:
> On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 09:35 -0700, angelo wrote:
> > Hi Christopher,
> > I'm on the opendkim list also and it does get little attention.
>
> Really? :)
>
> > Is the "delay" recorded in a typical Postfix log entry ?
> > Stolen from Postfix 2.3.19:
> > Postfix logs additi
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 09:35 -0700, angelo wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
> I'm on the opendkim list also and it does get little attention.
Really? :)
> Is the "delay" recorded in a typical Postfix log entry ?
> Stolen from Postfix 2.3.19:
> Postfix logs additional delay information as "delays=a/b/c/d"
Hi Christopher,
I'm on the opendkim list also and it does get little attention.
Is the "delay" recorded in a typical Postfix log entry ?
Stolen from Postfix 2.3.19:
Postfix logs additional delay information as "delays=a/b/c/d"
where a=time before queue manager, including message transmission;
natsu:
> Wietse
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Because I am not able to understand much about the following because of
> lack of study,
> Can you explain it in a bit more detail? Please.
>
> > To recognize an email address, Postfix compares the content of two
> > character strings stored as a
On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 12:42 +0100, Christopher R. Gabriel wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 19:56 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 04.01.19 15:23, Christopher R. Gabriel wrote:
> > > I have a generator server which injects (via smtp) into postfix,
> > > the
> > > actual sender, and when bur
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 7:02 AM, Andrey Repin wrote:
>
>> The 3.4.0-RC2 version of Postfix appears to have dropped support for
>> logging via TCP Unix sockets.
>> As recently as 3.3.0 Postfix used a TCP Unix socket to connect to syslog.
>
> No. It used a UNIX domain socket, not TCP.
The OP mean
On 2/15/19 7:23 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> Wouldn't procmail do something like this? I haven't used procmail for
> quite some time, but iirc it can handle passing to a filter program,
> then the filter can hand it to the lmtp (dovecot for instance).
I think filtering it with procmail suffers from
Wietse
Thank you for your reply.
Because I am not able to understand much about the following because of
lack of study,
Can you explain it in a bit more detail? Please.
> To recognize an email address, Postfix compares the content of two
> character strings stored as a sequence of octets.
> stri
Wouldn't procmail do something like this? I haven't used procmail for quite
some time, but iirc it can handle passing to a filter program, then the filter
can hand it to the lmtp (dovecot for instance).
Just a thought. I now return to the lurkers lair.
--Curtis
On February 15, 2019 6:58:00
Hello,
I have been using Postfix for many years - wonderful piece of software.
I need to re-write a sender envelope address to "boun...@gmail.com" only if
the recipient matches "my...@gmail.com".
Can someone point me in the correct direction?
thanks
itguy
--
Sent from: http://postfix.1071664
Lex Scarisbrick:
> The 3.4.0-RC2 version of Postfix appears to have dropped support for
> logging via TCP Unix sockets. As recently as 3.3.0 Postfix used a TCP Unix
> socket to connect to syslog. This is obliquely referenced in the release
> notes:
Postfix calls the syslog(3) system library func
natsu:
> Hello
>
> Let me question about double bounce.
>
> I am using postfix 2.10.
>
> For double bounce, the document is too few to understand the behavior of
> double bounce.
> I confirmed the following documents. There is a point I do not understand,
> please let me ask a question.
>
>
>
Greetings, Jan P. Kessler!
>>> Does anyone have any suggestions for a tool for filtering out click
>>> trackers from links in email bodies and rewriting the links without
>>> the click tracking?
>> Anything that does this will also break DKIM, if the email has it
>> (which many do). But perhaps y
Greetings, Lex Scarisbrick!
> The 3.4.0-RC2 version of Postfix appears to have dropped support for
> logging via TCP Unix sockets.
> As recently as 3.3.0 Postfix used a TCP Unix socket to connect to syslog.
No. It used a UNIX domain socket, not TCP.
> This is obliquely referenced in the releas
Greetings, Phil Stracchino!
> Quick question I hope:
> Does anyone have any suggestions for a tool for filtering out click
> trackers from links in email bodies and rewriting the links without the
> click tracking?
How would you distinguish a click tracking link from password restoration link?
Hello
Let me question about double bounce.
I am using postfix 2.10.
For double bounce, the document is too few to understand the behavior of
double bounce.
I confirmed the following documents. There is a point I do not understand,
please let me ask a question.
Postfix Address Verification Howt
22 matches
Mail list logo
