[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Gilgongo via Postfix-users
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 16:14, Noel Jones via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote: > If you need permit_mx_backup, that means postfix doesn't have a > clear idea of domains it is responsible for. > > Please read and study: > http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html > > my

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Noel Jones via Postfix-users
On 6/11/2024 4:05 AM, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 05:17, Noel Jones via Postfix-users mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org>> wrote: You should remove permit_mx_backup. This feature is intended for ISP-scale users that may not have a complete list of domains

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Gilgongo via Postfix-users
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 11:52, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote: > On 11.06.24 11:02, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote: > >OK so I assume I can use the IP address of the primary and secondary MX > >servers, since all our domains are hosted on those IPs. >

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
>BTW in the meantime, if I add this (where mx2.mydomain.com is our >secondary MX hostname), I take it that would be a good idea: > >permit_mx_backup_networks = $mynetworks mx2. mydomain.com On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 10:36, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrot

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Gilgongo via Postfix-users
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 10:36, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote: > > >BTW in the meantime, if I add this (where mx2.mydomain.com is our > secondary > >MX hostname), I take it that would be a good idea: > > > >permit_mx_backup_networks = $mynetworks mx2. my

[pfx] Re: DKIM policy question

2024-06-11 Thread Jeff Peng via Postfix-users
nice to know the info. thanks Viktor. Per the specification, a DKIM signature that fails to match the message content MUST be treated the same as absence of DKIM signatures. Also, absent a DKIM-Signature header, you can't even find the DKIM DNS record, because the selector is unknown. Any ass

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 05:17, Noel Jones via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote: You should remove permit_mx_backup. This feature is intended for ISP-scale users that may not have a complete list of domains that use their server as a backup MX. In this case, permit_mx_backup_netwo

[pfx] Re: Sanity check/suggestions appreciated

2024-06-11 Thread Gilgongo via Postfix-users
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 05:17, Noel Jones via Postfix-users < postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote: > You should remove permit_mx_backup. > > This feature is intended for ISP-scale users that may not have a > complete list of domains that use their server as a backup MX. In > this case, permit_mx_backu

[pfx] Re: DKIM policy question

2024-06-11 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:18:17AM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote: > spf, dmarc have the policy to reject a message. > My question is, why dkim has no choice for rejecting messages? > for example, if dkim signature failed, where to instruct this message can be > rejected? Per the specif