;
> CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER. Please use caution when opening links,
> attachments, or sending information. This email did not originate from
> internal staff. - IT Support
>
> On 24.06.22 22:50, Gary Smith wrote:
> > I have an smtpd process configured with this below. I
Looking for advice.
I have an smtpd process configured with this below. It works great when
injecting the messages from localhost but fails with '5.7.1 :
Recipient address rejected: Access denied' when I try it from a remote node
(this port is firewalled and only allowed for specific machin
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org On
Behalf Of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Certificate Postfix.org missing?
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 4:34 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
>
> Chrome shows it as "Not se
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:08:37PM +0200, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> > There is neither a service at port 443, nor a postfix.org website.
>
> You mean you don't authorize this site to use the Postfix name?
> Don't understand, too cryptic.
As stated there is no postfix.org website:
$ curl http
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 1:18 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: How to retrieve queue_id after submission
>
> Gary Smith:
> > > Gary Smith:
> >
> Gary Smith:
> > Hi team,
> >
> > I may have asked this years ago, but I can't find it in my email.
> > I have a need to retrieve the queue_id of emails submitted at time of
> > submission when issuing submissions with the -G option. I can see
> > t
holdstead.com> 2>&1 | grep "send
attr queue_id"
postdrop: send attr queue_id = 874DA54C89
Gary Smith
Hi Everyone,
It's been a long time since something in postfix has stumped me. I am using
virtual alias rewrites to handle 50k incoming email addresses that expand to
1+n recipients. The recipients are the line managers and lower level people
that handle those accounts. The virtual alias has
> Restarting postfix, saslauthd and authdaemon seems to get it working again,
> at least for a while.
>
Are you using pam_mysql by chance?
> Am 03.01.2012 18:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>
> > To add to this sentiment, haven't most/all the viri/malware pushers
> > switched from an email delivery vector to drive-by downloads? I can't
> > recall the last time I saw a viral email attachment.
>
> our barracuda saw 2929 in the last year
>
> I've been administering the same postfix server for years so I'm a little
> confused as to how this happened. Granted postifx hasn't been updated in a
> year or so.
>
> This morning I came in to a mailq of over 93000 messages all destine to
> @yahoo.com.tw
>
> For now I'm just blocking all ema
when there is an update to the database there usually only a
60 second delay.
Only thing I had to do is setup an apache server (any web server will do) and a
bash script that uses basic bash commands.
If you are interested, I can email you some sample scripts of the
backend/frontend. The SQL is tw
> So you should change 'client' to 'recipient' in master.cf before you
> remove the 'permit_sasl_authenticated' in main.cf.
>
> At that point, SquirrelMail (or anything else) won't be able to send
> mail unless it authenticates on port 587, sends to one of your domains
> on port 25, or is in $myne
> To summarize, we think SMTP Auth is the simplest and most useful way to
> allow people to send mail through our outbound mail system, and we are
> hoping to get some feedback from the community regarding this
> perspective.
Yes and No. for 99% of our client base, we use SMTP auth. We have a coup
> Sure.
>
> https://launchpad.net/pypolicyd-spf
>
> Scott K
Scott,
Thanks. Looks much simpler than the other ones that I have looked at. I really
need to have a single check for sasl_username and compare it against a set of
canned rules from stats in a memcached server, and either return "DUN
Does anyone have a simple policy daemon written in Python they would be willing
to share? I was looking at policy but that's overkill and it might require some
tweaking just to support my tiny requirements.
Gary Smith
> > Depending on what character set you are using, it could be a problem
> > but the fix is simple, UPPER(%s) or LOWER(%s) (based on how your data is
> stored).
> > I agree to dumping LIKE for performance reasons
>
> the tables are all UTF8, but there is no relevant non-ascii data i choosed
> lik
> cool - this means i do not need any like in any postfix-mysql-config what is
> faster because keys are used, nice to know, i wanted to get sure that there
> nothing fails while making this setup a year ago
Depending on what character set you are using, it could be a problem but the
fix is simpl
> You must have permit_sasl_authenticated in
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions to allow users to relay.
> Typically on the outgoing only server, only
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions is used and the other
> smtpd_*_restrictions sections are empty.
>
Gotcha
>
> The one that's repeated ;)
> reject_
> > Anyway, the question is, how does the community as a whole deal with
> > big ISP's losing email? It seems that some companies (like ATT) seem
> > to have less and less access to tools necessary for communicating with
> > them on things like this. Is there any know lists of contact/support
>
> HOLD always take place last, and only accepted mail is put on
> HOLD. Since this server is for user submission and all mail
> is either authenticated or rejected, it doesn't matter too
> much where you put the hold.
Good to know. I probably asked the same question years ago, but this helps.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
> On Behalf Of Gary Smith
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:34 PM
> To: 'postfix-users@postfix.org'
> Subject: hold after permit question
>
> I hav
I have clients relaying email through a set of servers but I wanted to put a
hold in there based on specific circumstances (such as they are sending too
much data, so lets hold and inspect). I have a hash file
(/etc/postfix/maps/hold) that is dynamically updated from a central server. So
when t
This is somewhat off topic to the postfix list, but relevant to the community.
I have a client who sends about 600mgs/week total from their SBS server through
our email relays. The relay IP has a positive reputation and isn't flagged for
spam on any of the lists. Recently they had an issue in wh
> > openssl s_client -showcerts -state -quiet -status -connect localhost:465
> SSL_connect:before/connect initialization
> SSL_connect:SSLv2/v3 write client hello A
> SSL_connect:error in SSLv2/v3 read server hello A
> 3075593864:error:140770FC:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:unknown
> protocol
> Oops, while the "umask 077" is indeed required, this does produce a PEM
> file with a usable key and certificate, provided the OpenSSL library
> behind the pkcs12 command is not substantially newer than the one
> Postfix
> is linked with. If the command is from OpenSSL 1.0.0, it will generate
> a
> openssl can convert between various formats.
> http://www.sslshopper.com/article-most-common-openssl-commands.html
> http://security.ncsa.illinois.edu/research/grid-
> howtos/usefulopenssl.html
> http://shib.kuleuven.be/docs/ssl_commands.shtml
> ...
Mouss,
Thanks for the follow up. I know that
I have an SSL key in pkcs12 format (pfx exported from Windows) that I need to
convert into the proper format for postfix. The pfs includes the entire chain
as well.
Anyone know the proper way to convert this file into the corresponding
smtpd_tls_key_file/smtpd_tls_cert_file formats? My unders
> >> It appears mycingular ( iphone ) ips are listed on spamhaus (
> >> XBL and PBL ) for 8 days.
> >
> > Yes, they should be listed.
>
> Why should they? They have mail servers too. I just don't get this.
>
> >
Randy,
Right now my be the time to rethink your question, as you stated your
cust
> "My general advice WRT to VPS/colo/hosting outfits such as Softlayer,
> Limestone, Sharktech, Hostnoc, Colocation America, Colo4, SingleHop,
> Liquid Web, ServePath, GigeNet, WholeSale Internet, FDCservers,
> CarolinaNet, Hurricane Electric, et al is to SMTP block their entire IP
> space and then
that uses the same rules as the primary, so
it should be transparent. In fact for some of them they wont even notice the
outage. I'm just more worried about sites that I'll have to register the IP's
at. I guess I'll start doing that as soon as I get the IP's.
Gary Smith
> you can try a lookup of these IPs in multiple RBLs, and lookup the
> "surrounding subnet" (/24 for example) on:
> http://www.senderbase.org/
>
> you may want to keep the old servers for some time.
> (from experience, I've found MS to "cache" reputation for a long long
> time. That once for
with as many large receivers will help (Yahoo in particular).
>
> HTH,
> -will
Makes sense. I will keep a set of MX servers at the original COLO setup to
accept emails from my new range and forward outgoing email through them until
we verify the new one.
Gary Smith
as such the RNDS records
for them as well. I just want to make sure that there's little, if any,
problems for myself and my customers that use my services.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Gary Smith
>The spam-assassin filter is still on testing period so some messages are
>marked as SPAM only but are not blocked. Could that be the reason of
>duplicated emails?
Possibly a problem with SA. If you remove it does the problem go away?
Also think about how spam assassin is configured. If you
> Here is a parts from my main.cf
>
> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, $mydomain
> mynetworks = 10.78.0.0/16, 10.82.0.0/19, 127.0.0.0/32
> relay_domains = $mydestination, $mydomain
> relayhost = [192.168.10.2]
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> permit_sasl_authenti
>
> do you have any information on a future release redhat postfix
> I'm going to compile my rpm
I have no more information than you. I just manage my own base packages and
update them when a new postfix release comes out.
> hello postfix network
>
> are you there a official version of centos postfix most days can be
> redhat
> this actual version is
> [r...@r13151 ~]# rpm -qa | grep postfix
> postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
> postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
> This version is outdated and is no longer supported
> how to k
> I've seen everything set up per the documents and all the online tests
> showing that i'm not an open relay. I have no need for external
> sendmail and I've used all the proper configs and all the suggestions
> on the list, and I still get some guy with watches for sale who can
> send mail anyway
> What about avoid the NOQUEUE error on the smtp server when policy
> service is down? I mean, queue all mail until the policy server is UP
> again. Is it possible?
That defeats the use of the policy server. The purpose of the policy server is
to help determine if it should be queued or rejected
> I came across Policyd. It seems to follow similar Perl script for rate
> limiting. Does that sound like a solution ?
If it fits your needs, then yes.
>I am using Postfix as an MTA but I see nowadays lot of spam going out of my
>system. I have used transport based throttling for a domain but I am looking
>for options for per sender based rate limiting. Can I achieve per user based
>throttling using postfix or I have to use some 3rd party sof
> A while back I changed my aliases to use the mysql database. Well I
> thought everything was fine until I had a changed and relized the
> postmaster address was not working. Okay no problem I'll just link a
> postmaster address to the support account of my system. Well that is
> great if I send a
> Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage
> into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter
> error messages.
>
> With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP)
> filter approach not pipe(8) based filters.
Viktor/Weitse,
> > May 13 04:09:23 host01 postfix/smtpd[10301]: lost connection after RCPT from
> unknown[190.107.112.194]
>
> Listed on SpamHaus XBL
>
> Unless these listings postdate your log entries, you should probably
> not allow these clients to get as far as "DATA".
>
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamh
> This strongly suggests that you have is a 10 second time limit
> on the life time of NAT/VPS/whatever state.
>
> Wietse
Makes complete sense. I will bounce it off the ipvsadm list. They don't tend
to respond much as of recent.
BTW, I did notice, while analyzing some of the logs, tha
> Have you disabled window scaling on your Postfix server. Lost connections
> are often the result of firewalls mangling "advanced" TCP features.
>
> - Disable window scaling
> - Disable ECN
>
I don't believe we have disabled any of the advanced features. That will give
me something to
Weitse,
For some reason, random mails from you pop up in my inbox, instead of my
postfix list instead delivery on behalf of postfix-users@postfix.org like most
others. Just an FYI
> If the NAT assumes that everything is a web client and drops
> connections after a few seconds, then Postfix wi
> Per the welcome message you received when you joined the list:
>
That would be like 5+ years ago. I've slept since then.
> TO REPORT A PROBLEM see:
> http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
>
> At a minimum, postfix version, output of postconf -n and unedited
> NON-verbose logs exhibit
I've been getting a lost of "lost connection after DATA" this last week. On
our low volume servers (that houses some minor clients) we are receiving
800/day. We switched over to ipvsadm about 3 weeks ago and I though maybe it's
because of non-persistent connections. So I reset ipvsadm to be p
As covered, the pipe probably isn't what I want to do. Looking into the
advanced content filter, these seems two paths; execute a script as a process
from postfix (spawn) or setup a simple proxy indepdenent of postfix. Either
one would probably work.
In either case, spawn or proxy, is it poss
> The SMTP protocol is not a trade secret. The definition is publically
> available from the IETF website.
You make it hard to try to be lazy ;). I'll look into the RFC. In the
background I will probably just enforce the strict_rfc821_envelopes policy.
> > > That depends on how Postfix is configured.
> > >
> > > Remember, Postfix passes the RCPT TO and MAIL FROM commands to the
> > > filter as received. By default, Postfix allows non-standard forms
> > > (such as your examples). If this is a problem then you will need
> > > to configure "strict_r
> > When it comes to envelope, specifically "mail from:" and "rcpt
> > to:", my understanding is that these will never have comments in
> > them and be just plain email addresses j...@example.com,
> > bou...@jack@bou...@example.com, etc, but never "jack"
> > (or (i.e. the <> ). In the sample py
>
> Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage
> into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter
> error messages.
>
> With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP)
> filter approach not pipe(8) based filters.
Looking aroun
> Also, if the process does not close/redirect stdout and stderr,
> Postfix will still wait for program output, and you won't gain any
> speedup from forking off into the background.
>
> > With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP)
> > filter approach not pipe(8) base
> Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage
> into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter
> error messages.
>
> With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP)
> filter approach not pipe(8) based filters.
>
Victor,
To
> If the filter reports success to Postfix before giving the FILTERED
> message to the Postfix queue, then Postfix will remove the UNFILTERED
> message from the queue too early, and you will lose mail when (not
> if) the filter has a problem.
>
The filter re-injects the message back into the queu
Given the message below, if I fork a process inside a content filter (say in
python or perl), so I can return the message back to postfix faster (and end
the content pipe fast with a success exist code), will this have any impact on
postfix?
> We have a custom content filter in place. During t
> I use a unique email address (alias) for every web(service)
> registration. I would like to limit or even block spam sent to these
> unique addresses. I glanced through the Postfix book but couldn't find
> an answer.
>
I've done that as well. Sometimes I love it when I get emails from
blockbu
>... ${sasl_username:unknown} ${recipient}
>
> ie. if $sasl_username is empty, substitute "unknown"
>
> But nothing particularly wrong with what you're doing already.
That will work better for me since I won't have to parse out the sasl_username
from the [] if it's empty. I can just check
I have a content filter in which I need the sasl_username. This works for most
of our outgoing email. The problem is sometimes locally generated email is
submitted without SASL (as they are in the mynetworks table). This leaves
sasl_username blank. So to get around this I have wrapped ${sasl
> Hi guys,
>
> I still need to accept mail for the email addresses we host on our
> machine from the net, so blocking port 25 or mynetworks as local host
> would seem to prevent that. we still have users on the domain that
> get mail to the address, except now we forward that mail to gmail
> usin
> We don't have any legitimate users sending mail aside from scripts on
> the server (linux), only mail from localhost, anyone with an email
> address is listed in the virtual file and has their email forwarded to
> a gmail and uses gmail's MTA to send mail.
>
> Since we have all the email addres
> > I tried to make a CIDR file with most of the 3rd world in it, some
> > 30,000 ips but for some reason it doesn't seem to have the effect I
> > was hoping for.
> > Any ideas would be helpful, thanks.David
>
> Add amavisd to your postfix.
If they are relaying messages through their server, how
> > I have a need to migrate some IP's from a static file to a hash file. These
> are singleton IP's (hash CIDR's).
>
> hash != cidr
It was meant to read "singleton IP's (not CIDR's)". I need to do a little more
proof reading before sending out these things.
> > i.e. would this be acceptable
> Sure, this is an improvement over what you had, but it seems strange
> to me that mynetworks would be changing frequently. Perhaps SASL AUTH
> is a better solution overall?
They don't change very often. Most of the time the problem is when adding new
servers to the mix and old config files are
I have a need to migrate some IP's from a static file to a hash file. These
are singleton IP's (hash CIDR's). My understanding is this is just a
verification table, so a long as it exists (i.e. returns any value) it's
considered allows if there is a match. Is this correct?
i.e. would this be
> >> This DOES NOT limit your delivery RATE!!
> >>
> >> This limits only the delivery CONCURRENCY.
> >>
> >> To limit the delivery RATE, see
> >> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_destination_rate_delay.
> >>
...
> If that still doesn't help, then implement the rate delay as
> explai
> This DOES NOT limit your delivery RATE!!
>
> This limits only the delivery CONCURRENCY.
>
> To limit the delivery RATE, see
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_destination_rate_delay.
>
Looking into it now. Thanks for the pointer Wietse. If I'm running multiple
outgoing rela
>
> Do you realize the entries you just posted are misspelled domains? They
> are not sbcglobal.net, comcast.net, or earthlink.net.
>
> -Mike
Mike, um, belay my last... My eyes are tired from clearing out queue's.
Yes, those are wrong, looks like they have some typos, but they queues that
> > rate_limit_transport:
> > aol.com ratelimit:
> > yahoo.com ratelimit:
> > sbcglobal.net ratelimit:
> > gmail.com ratelimit:
> >
> This looks reasonable to me; no more than 3 connections should
> be made at a t
Lately I have found that my outgoing queues are getting a little clogged for
yahoo and sbcglobal.net. This usually coincides with a bulk set of news
letters sent out from a couples clients. Typically we are seeing that they
dump about 2000msg/per batch, with no more than one batch per week (us
We have a custom content filter in place. During the execution of this filter
we create a set of files, per message, for the purpose of being processes
after the filter is finished. The goal in that was to get the mail back into
postfix ASAP.
In the background we have a cronjob that goes t
> I'm working on load balancing some sqlgrey servers using ipvsadm (non of the
> other bells and whistles, just the director itself). Anyway, at first glimps
> things look like they are running well until I find that I have a lot of
> connections in ESTABLISHED mode running on the sqlgrey real ser
I'm working on load balancing some sqlgrey servers using ipvsadm (non of the
other bells and whistles, just the director itself). Anyway, at first glimps
things look like they are running well until I find that I have a lot of
connections in ESTABLISHED mode running on the sqlgrey real servers.
> Is there some reason the Message-ID won't work as a unique
> identifier?
>
It's about compliance tracking and tagging for specific things.
> You can use a policy server to insert a header based on
> envelope information.
> http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html
>
> If your header mus
We use a filter to break out and run our spamassassin and other checks. In bash
shell that process, we have a need to insert a custom unique header per email
for compliance. Is there a simple way of doing this without having to go into
any special mime processing of the message?
Gary Smith
> No, there must be a "result" with the address, but postfix
> doesn't use that result. The file will look like:
>
> u...@example.com anything
> us...@example.com anything
> us...@example.com anything
>
> "anything" can be any text, such as an administrative comment.
That's what I thought. I
> The script just does:
>
> * Copy in new relay_recipients file
> * postmap relay_recipients
> * postfix reload
>
> Is there a better way to do this? Should I stop postfix completely during
> this time? Will putting the queue on hold avoid this problem, or do I need
> to stop Postfix completely
Currently we are using mysql plugin for this and are switching over to static
files (or files generated on a schedule from the database). Anyway, looking at
the docs, it says that the entry need only been found in the file to be
accepted, otherwise it will be rejected.
"Postfix needs to know
> I am running CentOS 5.4 and the latest version of Postfix it has on the
> repository is version 2.3.3. After looking at the Postfix site I found out
> that that version is no longer updated.
Kaleb,
RedHat tends to backport security patches even for older products, when they
can. I personally
> There may be several legitimate reasons to stick with an older version
> for some time, but if it's all the same to you, then using the latest
> stable release is always the best default choice.
For products like postfix (in terms of how they manager their product), I have
high confidence when
> Everything you need to know is the RELEASE_NOTES.
>
Read them already... I just wanted to do a double check first.
Thanks,
Gary-
Our Q2 patch cycle is coming up and I was going to upgrade 2.6.5 -> 2.6.6 on
the servers but then though maybe 2.6.5 -> 2.7.0 might be in order. I have
everything ready to go either way (download and created RPM's for both 2.6.6
and 2.7.0).
Is there any consideration that needs to be made in
> > http://roundcube.net/
>
> +1
>
> If you're going to offer webmail, you may as well offer IMAP folders instead
> of
> POP. JMHO.
>
I think it depends upon the requirements. For very simple mail and setup, +1
roundcube. I have been using horde for some time for my clients (as they use
Dhiraj,
First off, if Wietse said how to do it then it’s the right way. The question I
have is how many emails are you sending to these two organizations? Can you
quantify “a good number”?
Gary Smith
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf
> /etc/postfix/main.cf
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> ...
> reject_unauth_destination
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_whitelist
> ...greylisting here...
>
> And put "address OK" in the whitelist.
I'll give that a try. I think the problem
to do this for postmaster/abuse on all hosted domains. Is there a
simple way to do this using an access policy or something? i.e. accept all
email for ab...@* and postmas...@* (and whatever other accounts we do want to
bypass as well)?
Gary Smith
> Move reject_unauth_destination up above these checks...
I'll address that while I'm in there as well. These were created some time ago
and I should probably spend some time today myself looking at them to make sure
they are still sane.
a minute. I don't
know what I was smoking when I used a common file for that.
Gary Smith
>
> OK, now more. Apparently there is a problem with one of my users who
> is constantly being spammed by a specific remote sender. The remote
> senders email is always the same and somehow gets bounced for days in
> between my postfix server and my exchange bridgehead. What can I do to
> just
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Bob Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:26 PM
> To: users Postfix
> Subject: Emptying SPAM account
>
> I have set up SpamAssissin with an account to collect rejecte
> I recall some months ago seeing a large discussion on someone taking
> their time and dedication on creating a pre-packaged RPM of 2.6.X. I
> was wondering if anyone has the latest RPM that I can download for my
> new RHEL 5 server. I am looking to use 2.6.5 from a packaged RPM
> however Redhat
> I have a list of IP/domain combinations that I want to reject. This
> list is built from spamassassin AWL. I don't necessarily want to block
> the entire domain if I don't have to, just domain IP combinations. So,
> running creative queries against AWL, I get a list of domain/IP's.
>
> Is the
I have a list of IP/domain combinations that I want to reject. This list is
built from spamassassin AWL. I don't necessarily want to block the entire
domain if I don't have to, just domain IP combinations. So, running creative
queries against AWL, I get a list of domain/IP's.
Is there a way
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On
Behalf Of Evan Platt [e...@espphotography.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:55 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: RE: Hash file oddity
At 11:50 AM 7/31/2009, you wrote:
>P
PS: Sorry for top posting. OWA doesn't have a good way to do it.
From: Noel Jones [njo...@megan.vbhcs.org]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Gary Smith; postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Hash file oddity
Gary Smith wrote:
> A cli
A client uses hash files for transport and access on a couple relays. When I
need to make a change to one of these files I typically just edit it and then
do a postmap whatever. On one of the machines it doesn't seem to pickup the
change until I restart postfix (it's an older machine with an o
fix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Gary Smith
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:14 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: lmtp delivery rewriting issue.
>
> Stuff is AFU after server migration. Email can be delivered to
> accounts t
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
