Wietse,
> With an ugly hack we could make these a "notify-none" recipient
I always like ugly hacks ;-)
This
> /^(RCPT\s+TO:\s Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100,
> > tobs...@brain-force.ch wrote:
> >
> > > Is somehow possible to use other delay notification setting
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 01:42:40AM +, Antonio Leding
wrote:
> Not sure if this is a question for the community or just the devs but one of
> the credos this user swears by is “If it isn’t broken, then don’t go fixin’
> it…”
>
> There’s this FUD out there that all sites MUST be https. Of co
Starting this month through May 2022, Microsoft will incrementally
roll out outbound DANE support (*enabled by default*) for all hosted
Exchange Online domains:
https://m365admin.handsontek.net/upcoming-release-outbound-smtp-dane-and-dnssec-in-microsoft-365-exchange-online/
> As previo
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:34:19PM -0300, Nilo César Teixeira wrote:
> First message on this group, thanks for all good advice so far.
>
> Regarding https, why not host Postfix website here:
> https://pages.github.com/ ?
The hosting arrangements for Postfix.org don't currently include HTTPS
supp
Not sure if this is a question for the community or just the devs but
one of the credos this user swears by is “If it isn’t broken, then
don’t go fixin’ it…”
There’s this FUD out there that all sites MUST be https. Of course I
disagree with this sentiment but perhaps there is something I’m
m
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 12:23:16PM +1100, raf wrote:
> > I don't think that requiring client certs is a best practice. It
> > precludes concurrent use of alternative authentication methods. Just
> > asking is generally enough
>
> Thanks. But even so, it should probably still only be
> a -o overr
Hi,
First message on this group, thanks for all good advice so far.
Regarding https, why not host Postfix website here:
https://pages.github.com/ ?
We could leverage auto https ideally, but perhaps for custom domain certbot
would be necessary haven't researched yet.
Em seg., 3 de jan. de 2022
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:09:56PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 02:09:45PM +1100, raf wrote:
>
> > > is on - so it is asking for client certificates?
> > > But that is really not authetication, if I understand things.
> >
> > It's asking for them (from all clients, e
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 08:13:11AM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Setting compatibility_level=2 doesn't reproduce the error message.
As expected.
> Removing the compatibility_level entirely does reintroduce the error
> message (once per every inbound connection):
Well, the default compatibility
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 12:23 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > This config produces the warning/error message:
> >
> > mail_version = 3.6.3
> > smtpd_relay_restrictions = ${{$compatibility_level} > {permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
> > defer_unauth_destination}}
> > smt
Jim Popovitch:
> This config produces the warning/error message:
>
> mail_version = 3.6.3
> smtpd_relay_restrictions = ${{$compatibility_level} {permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
> defer_unauth_destination}}
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_client_access
> cidr:/etc/postfix/chec
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 11:32 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 22:29 +1100, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Removing the compatibility_level setting entirely could introduce
> > > the reported symptoms, if "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" doesn't
> > > h
Jim Popovitch:
> On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 22:29 +1100, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >
> >
> > Removing the compatibility_level setting entirely could introduce
> > the reported symptoms, if "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" doesn't
> > have any of the "default deny" rules, and relies on the relay
> > restr
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100, tobs...@brain-force.ch wrote:
>
> > Is somehow possible to use other delay notification settings for a
> > particular recipient address?
>
> No, this is a message-level property, same for all delayed recipients
> of the message.
With a
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 22:29 +1100, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
> Removing the compatibility_level setting entirely could introduce
> the reported symptoms, if "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" doesn't
> have any of the "default deny" rules, and relies on the relay
> restrictions to prevent relay abus
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100, tobs...@brain-force.ch wrote:
> Is somehow possible to use other delay notification settings for a
> particular recipient address?
No, this is a message-level property, same for all delayed recipients
of the message.
> My global setting is 30min which is
Hi
Is somehow possible to use other delay notification settings for a
particular recipient address?
My global setting is 30min which is fine except for two addresses.
Those addresses are on a remote system which is not always up. It gets
the mail on boot by ETRN command to the postfix server. So
> On 6 Jan 2022, at 9:26 pm, John Fawcett wrote:
>
> I'd be very surprised to find that changing the compatibility_level from 2 to
> 3.6, with a default setting for smtpd_relay_restrictions in version 3.6.3
> would resolve the fatal error "in parameter smtpd_relay_restrictions or
> smtpd_recip
On 06/01/2022 00:47, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 00:11 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
On 05/01/2022 21:21, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 20:45 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
On 05/01/2022 20:19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
This can't be right
Using 'postconf -d smtpd_relay_r
19 matches
Mail list logo
