On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
Why is there a 2Mb+ difference between the message_size_limit value and the
attachment size accepted? (I don't think the envelope can take 2Mb...)
It doesn't. But an encoded attachment does take up quite a deal more
space than the original file (it
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
Geoff Shang:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
You need to do "postfix reload" after editing master.cf.
I did. I did it again for good measure - no difference.
Are you using receive_override_options? in main.cf or master.cf?
No.
Geoff.
2.28.161])
by mail.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DED281C40E9
for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:35:47
+ (UTC)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:35:44 +0300 (EEST)
From: Geoff Shang
X-X-Sender: ge...@my-pc.home
To: my.addr...@example.com
Subject: test
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 126
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Geoff Shang wrote:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o cleanup_service=submission_cleanup
submission_cleanup unix n cleanup
-o header_checks=pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks
would do the job
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
Geoff Shang:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o smtpd_enforce_tls=yes
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
-o milter_macro_daemon_name=ORIGINATING
-o
Hi,
I'm trying to strip Received: headers from mail at various parts of our
processing, for security reasons.
I'm starting with mail that comes in from authenticated clients. I tried
doing the following:
master.cf:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o smtpd_e
Hi,
My second query.
We have a mail scanner which receives outside mail from our MX and
submitted mail from customers, scans it for spam and viruses, and either
delivers it to customers or sends it out to the world via the MX. This
means that all mail is relayed, the machine has no direct ac
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:45:57PM +0200, Geoff Shang wrote:
Given the high focus on secrity at our company, we've determined
that password verification in LDAP is a costly operation.
Why is it costly? And how does "costly" fi
Hi,
First, thanks to everyone for your help so far.
We've got all our customer information in LDAP and we've set up our
Postfix and Dovecot instances to talk to it.
Given the high focus on secrity at our company, we've determined that
password verification in LDAP is a costly operation. The
Hi,
I guess the following makes sence. I was just wondering if this is
intended behaviour, and if so, why.
As I posted in my previous messages, I'm setting up mail for a mail
hosting solution that will host any number of domains. The mail itself
will be scanned on another box and stored on
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
In ldap-domains.cf, I use %d as the key to look for. Should I be using %s
That was the mistake. As documented in ldap_table(5):
%d When the input key is an address of the form user@domain,
%d is replaced by the (RFC 2253) quoted domain
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Noel Jones wrote:
Postfix uses the domain as the lookup key, not the whole address.
Test with:
$ postmap -q example.com ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-domains.cf
I was initially doing this but it didn't work.
In ldap-domains.cf, I use %d as the key to look for. Should I be usin
Hi,
Sorry for having to obscure stuff in the below, but I have to.
I'm setting up an MX for our new customer mail setup. I'm having a
problem where relay_domains are not being looked up in LDAP as they
should.
We have a bunch of test users in LDAP under the domain example.com, for
testing.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Geoff Shang wrote:
Outlook Express can use port 587 quite happily. You just have to tell it to.
I did also mean to say that you may need it for Outlook 2003 though.
We've got a few people using it and I forget what ended up working for
them.
Geoff.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Well the online tester made me aware of it, and some of my clients are stuck
with Outlook Express, thus my interest in it.
Outlook Express can use port 587 quite happily. You just have to tell it
to.
Cheers,
Geoff.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, James Griffin wrote:
As pointed out by Will, the program listening on port 25 for smtpd
connections is Sendmail version 8.14. This is, I imagine, the
default MTA installed on a Debian system which from the output of
your telnet session indicates you're using.
FWIW, Debian'
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Joey J wrote:
I currently have a transport_map that takes mail for abc.com and send it to
their server mail.abc.com, so I am acting as the gateway for the domain.
My trasport config looks like:
abc.comsmtp:[mail.abc.com]
Now lets say their server is down so we decide to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012, ashleygriffin.ca - Contact wrote:
Thanks for the info, running command xxx gives me v2.10-20120422, would I be
correct I cant use "sender_dependent_relayhost_maps" as this needs v2.3 or
later?
No, as 2.10 is 10 major versions after 2.0, not 1. In other words, 2.3 is
7 ma
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
In my experience, public facing email domains for organizations
with complex email requirements are almost almost best implemented
as virtual alias domains. This adds a layer of indirection between
the outside view of an email domain (everyone is just
Hi,
Apologies for jumping on a list and posting without reading some first.
This issue has been driving me mad for several days so I thought I'd jump
on here and ask.
I'm helping to set up a customer mail system for my work. I'm
specifically working on the MX machine.
Right now, the compa
20 matches
Mail list logo
