G?nther J. Niederwimmer:
> The second MX shout have also dovecot and all the Mails that is clear?
No. Secondary MXes forward email to primary MXes.
If you want something else, don't call it secondary MX. That
term already has common usage.
RFC 5321
A relay SMTP server is usually the target o
On Jun 6, 2019, at 5:07 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
This is unequivocal evidence of use of "sendmail -bv". You're reporting
non-use of "sendmail -v", but "-bv" != "-v". Perhaps you have a content
filter that is misconfigured to use "sendmail -bv".
As I have said twice now, there is no instance of an
On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:41 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> so possibly the "-x" option for spamass-milter is not a good idea with
>> postfix.
>
> Ok, now that is something too check. Took out the -x and restarted and we’ll
> see how that goes.
I
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> so possibly the "-x" option for spamass-milter is not a good idea with
> postfix.
Ok, now that is something too check. Took out the -x and restarted and we’ll
see how that goes.
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 6:48 AM, Günther J. Niederwimmer
> wrote:
>
> Now I like to create a secondary postfix for my system.
>
> What are the best to realize, have this two servers in sync?
>
> I have enable postscreen, all I found on Internet, is to have installed
> memcache is this correct?
>
>
Am Freitag, 7. Juni 2019, 05:10:09 CEST schrieb Durga Prasad Malyala:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 08:05 Viktor Dukhovni
>
> wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 2019, at 6:48 AM, Günther J. Niederwimmer
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Now I like to create a secondary postfix for my system.
> > >
> > > What are the best to
Am Freitag, 7. Juni 2019, 04:21:49 CEST schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Jun 6, 2019, at 6:48 AM, Günther J. Niederwimmer
> > wrote:
> >
> > Now I like to create a secondary postfix for my system.
> >
> > What are the best to realize, have this two servers in sync?
> >
> > I have enable postscre
On Jun 6, 2019, at 5:07 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
This is unequivocal evidence of use of "sendmail -bv". You're reporting
non-use of "sendmail -v", but "-bv" != "-v". Perhaps you have a content
filter that is misconfigured to use "sendmail -bv".
As I have said twice now, there is no instance of an
