> On 23 May 2015, at 10:03, Robert Chalmers wrote:
> And what is happening looks like this
>
> zeus:log robert$ telnet 192.168.0.15 25
> Trying 192.168.0.15...
> Connected to zeus.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 zeus.localhost ESMTP Postfix
> helo inmailwetrust.com
> 250 zeus.localhost
> mail
Hello!
> On 5 Apr 2014, at 11:32, Germain wrote:
>
> How may I define two reverse, one for each domain, pointing to my single IP
> ? Is it legal ? Is it possible ?
>
> Maybe I'm totally wrong...
We just set one record, or none. You just get problems with more than one as I
think most of ti
On 4 Feb 2014, at 18.51, Michael McCallister
wrote:
>
> Thanks again Jason. Everything works now. I stumbled across the space in
> the secrets file problem last night and that got hashes validating - but
> thanks for that insight too. I am running your updated release now and it is
> worki
Hi Michael,
This looks like one of my patches broke the TCP table when using "-I"... :-) It
should be 500 not 400 it seems. Fruneau will be pleased ^^
I've pushed a fix to my own fork which I'll pull to Fruneau soon - its
identical to Fruneau's except for this 400->500 fix. My fork is at:
https
Hi Michael,
It all looks fine config wise. But seems the bounce, although going through
cleanup according to log, isn't rewriting.
All I can suggest is to check there's no conflicting config elsewhere regarding
canonical etc. such as master.cf overriding it etc.
And maybe test the decoding by
Hi Michael,
I did some tweaks on pfixtools I will have to have a look and check for you (I
use it too.)
It's not the ideal method though and a milter is really the correct way to do
SRS as the canonical filters, although giving almost desired effect, aren't
ideal or intended for this. I'm even
Hello! Happy new year everyone.
Postfix version 2.10.2.
I have a canonical maps configuration:
recipient_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/rcptcanon
Which contains one entry:
@firstdomain.com @seconddomain.com
The firstdomain.com and seconddomain.com are both virtual mailbox domains.
The second
Hi,
I'm wanting to get some unix socket support on my mail server for the same
protocol used by the TCP table. I can see patches for this were submitted
before but had some issues with usability and namespace:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/222895
Has any thought been put int
> Why not use socketmaps? These already support "inet" and "unix"
> domain sockets, and they use (length, value) netstrings which require
> no encoding of special characters. There are netstring implementations
> for many languages, so availability should not be a problem.
Thanks. I'll definitely
