21.12.2024 02:37, E R via Postfix-users wrote:
Curious if there are others using the maillog_file setting who have
found that "out of the box" RHEL 8+ or 9+ will not allow Postfix to
start? I worked around the issue by creating a policy module for
testing purposes thanks to the help the SELInux
E R via Postfix-users:
> Curious if there are others using the maillog_file setting who have
> found that "out of the box" RHEL 8+ or 9+ will not allow Postfix to
> start? I worked around the issue by creating a policy module for
> testing purposes thanks to the help the SELInux Tool gave me (#sea
Curious if there are others using the maillog_file setting who have
found that "out of the box" RHEL 8+ or 9+ will not allow Postfix to
start? I worked around the issue by creating a policy module for
testing purposes thanks to the help the SELInux Tool gave me (#sealert
-l "*") with the suggestio
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 10:46:33PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> There's no "Return-To" header among standard email headers. There is
> "Reply-To", to indicate the address where the reply sent by the (human)
> recipient should go, and there's "Return-Receipt-To", to indicate the
Dnia 20.12.2024 o godz. 15:28:31 Etienne Gladu via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> it worked!
> I had to replace Reply-To by Return-To, but it works!
There's no "Return-To" header among standard email headers. There is
"Reply-To", to indicate the address where the reply sent by the (human)
recipient sh
Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-12-20 08:03, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
> >>
> >> And then you're going to watch this list and respond accordingly? ;)
> >
> > Absolutely. This is exactly why I asked in the first place.
> > I don't see why you're smiling there.
>
> Because i
Hi Viktor,
it worked!
I had to replace Reply-To by Return-To, but it works!
Thanks for the help,
Have a wonderful Holiday and happy new year
To you and everyone at Postfix
___
Étienne Gladu
De : Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-user
On 2024-12-20 08:03, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>>
>> And then you're going to watch this list and respond accordingly? ;)
>
> Absolutely. This is exactly why I asked in the first place.
> I don't see why you're smiling there.
Because it's overly optimistic and unreliable scenario.
On 2024-12-20 07:56, Michael Tokarev via Postfix-users wrote:
>>>
>>> if [ ! "$set" ]; then
>
> It is not, it tests for emptiness of the value. Not a
> difference between y and n, but between empty and non-empty.
How would one know? Use the -z test, unless you want some future
maintainer to
On 2024-12-20 03:17, Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users wrote:
> |>
> |> This seems wrong:
> |>
> |> if [ ! "$set" ]; then
>
> i think this is right for sh(1).
> This is because [] with the basic set of arguments is very exactly
> defined for compatibility reasons. See test(1) which states
10 matches
Mail list logo
