Hi,
I was wondering - is it possible to bounce e-mails for non-existent
addresses when using a catchall?
I don't know if I did something wrong, but here's what I did:
I configured postfix successfully to get my mailboxes and aliases from
ldap. On ldap, I have an alias "*@domain" that works a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Well, i do not know, .. but i have
>
> message_size_limit = 50
Wow, that's rather restrictive in age when disk capacities are starting
to be measured in 10s of terabytes, while the majority of mail serve
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 18:56, Serhii via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
> On 7/10/24 08:40, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
> > As you can see, it goes straight to the MX of the domain of the
> recipient. The same is true if I use mail.mailutils or other clients. So I
> was wo
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wk8qr69xlzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
|> That looks doable, but it seems to me that i then have to use
|> a very high limit which postfix announces via "250-SIZE", and
|> reject many (practically all) emails because
Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users:
> That looks doable, but it seems to me that i then have to use
> a very high limit which postfix announces via "250-SIZE", and
> reject many (practically all) emails because of size restrictions
You can suppress the SIZE announcement with
smtpd_discard_ehl
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4wk63t2dvkzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The Postfix message size limit is an MTA property, not something
|that varies with the sender. Or client. Or recipient address. If
|you want to allow a larger size, increase message_size_limit, and
|use postfwd or
The Postfix message size limit is an MTA property, not something
that varies with the sender. Or client. Or recipient address. If
you want to allow a larger size, increase message_size_limit, and
use postfwd or the like to enforce a lower limit in
smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions.
In the polocy dele
On 7/10/24 08:40, Gilgongo via Postfix-users wrote:
As you can see, it goes straight to the MX of the domain of the recipient. The
same is true if I use mail.mailutils or other clients. So I was wondering how I
might both allow sending but also (reliably) prevent abuse. Perhaps doing both
isn'
Hello.
Well, i do not know, .. but i have
message_size_limit = 50
which postfix transforms to RFC 1870
250-SIZE 50
(Btw, does the client part of RFC 1870 actually exist in practice?
I cannot recall to have seen it. Does postfix log such client
declarations? Would not think it doe
On 10.07.24 20:08, Katherine via Postfix-users wrote:
We run a small corporate mail server. Recently, we have been sending mail
to a server, and the server always defers the mail with a 4xx code. This
has been going on for several days. So, should we continue to send it? Why
doesn't the server ju
* Katherine via Postfix-users:
> Why doesn't the server just reject it (5xx code)? This deferral is
> very confusing to our administrators.
Confusing how? You did not provide enough information. What is the
actual deferral message?
-Ralph
___
Postfix-u
* Katherine via Postfix-users :
> Hello list,
>
> We run a small corporate mail server. Recently, we have been sending mail
> to a server, and the server always defers the mail with a 4xx code.
Stuff like this happens.
> doesn't the server just reject it (5xx code)? This deferral is very
> confu
Hello list,
We run a small corporate mail server. Recently, we have been sending mail
to a server, and the server always defers the mail with a 4xx code. This
has been going on for several days. So, should we continue to send it? Why
doesn't the server just reject it (5xx code)? This deferral is v
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:06:06AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I sent an email with one "to" and one "cc", and in the logs, I see:
>
> host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
>
> but the next line says:
>
> Queued mail for delivery
>
>
> 2024-07-10 10:20:56 pos
On 10/07/2024 12.46, Jeff Pang wrote:
> On 2024-07-10 17:06, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I sent an email with one "to" and one "cc", and in the logs, I see:
>>
>> host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
>>
>> but the next line says:
>>
>> Queued mail for deliver
On 2024-07-10 17:06, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
I sent an email with one "to" and one "cc", and in the logs, I see:
host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
but the next line says:
Queued mail for delivery
Your message was not delivered to peer MTA, and was cac
Hello,
I sent an email with one "to" and one "cc", and in the logs, I see:
host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
but the next line says:
Queued mail for delivery
2024-07-10 10:20:56 postfix/smtp: Untrusted TLS connection
established to
canadianmanganese-com.mail.protection.outloo
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:29:37AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I sent an email with one to: and one cc:
> in the logs, I see
>
> host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
To get help, post the logs to this list (start again with the question
this time including the log
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 09:06, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> When you say "the client", what do you mean? Do applications do "direct
> to MX" mail transmission? That seems odd, because they generally lack
> the capability to queue and retry messages if
Hello,
I sent an email with one to: and one cc:
in the logs, I see
host said: 452 4.5.3 Too many recipients
but the next line says:
Queued mail for delivery
I have pasted the full log here:
https://ctxt.io/2/AACY2F5JFg
what exactly is going on, and was my email delivered to both recip
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 06:17:26PM +0100, Gilgongo wrote:
> > > My first thought was to start by firewalling off mail ports on the local
> > > machine to only allow processes owned by root or postfix.
> >
> > Why? Just inspect the messages they submit, SASL is not required.
>
> Apologies - perha
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:19:08PM +1000, Gary R. Schmidt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On 10/07/2024 10:33, Phil Biggs via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Wednesday, July 10, 2024, 8:59:57 AM, Jeff Pang via Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > > Hello experts,
> >
> > > One of my customers in HK want to send b
22 matches
Mail list logo
