Hi Victor
thanks a lot for the hint to the right direction. Tried first with
sender_dependent_relayhost_maps but this one does not like the
transport name without nexthop. But
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps accepts smtps: without nexthop
:-)
Tested it on our testbox and it behaves like w
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 07:21:24AM +0200, Tobi via Postfix-users wrote:
> Or would it be possible to use a sender_dependent_relayhost_maps and
> define just the transport ex smtps: (without nexthop) in there so
> postfix would use that transport (to be defined in master.cf) and the
> normal MX of
Hi
I wonder if it is possible in postfix client to enforce usage of TLS
based on sender. Just like in smtp_tls_policy_maps but based on sender
of the message and not on rcpt or nexthop. The only way I can see so
far is to setup another postfix instance with smtp_tls_security_level =
encrypt and us
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4vqwxx2jpbzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|> * For smfi_chgheader, filter order is important. Later
|>filters will see the header changes made by earlier ones.
|
|Yes, that is fundamental to the way that the Milter API works. Each
|Milter "in
> * For smfi_chgheader, filter order is important. Later
>filters will see the header changes made by earlier ones.
Yes, that is fundamental to the way that the Milter API works. Each
Milter "inspects" the header and body content that exists after
Postfix and previous Milters have mad
Hello.
I am still writing my DKIM signer (or, actually, for over six
weeks, i got distracted and ran away due to header remove code,
and realization that all RFCs written after Y2K seem to introduce
their own syntax rules instead of simply going for *822 or 2045,
etc etc etc; including DKIM :().
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed);
dmarc=pass (Used From Domain Record) header.from=porcupine.org
policy.dmarc=none
On 25.04.24 19:19, Peter via Postfix-user
On 25/04/24 19:42, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-04-25 09:19:
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed);
dmarc=pass (
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-04-25 09:22:
You make a confusing, factually incomplete post with claims that are
incorrect and then complain about a lack of clear response on a
different list? If you're going to run down the postfix list for your
own failure at least have the decency
Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-04-25 09:19:
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed);
dmarc=pass (Used From Domain Record) header.from=porcupine.org
policy.d
On 25/04/24 14:34, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote:
+1, thanks for dovecot maillist do it right, postfix maillist fails on spf
You make a confusing, factually incomplete post with claims that are
incorrect and then complain about a lack of clear response on a
different list? If you're going
On 15/04/24 10:14, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Authentication-Results list.sys4.de; dkim=pass
header.d=porcupine.org; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=pass
(Used From Domain Record) header.from=porcupine.org policy.dmarc=none
What does this have to to with Postfix, or
12 matches
Mail list logo
