l relays. For documentation sake, to get there, I had to:
1) change main.cf as follows:
# sdiff -w 200 -s /etc/postfix/main.cf /home/marco/oldserver/etc/postfix/
main.cf
compatibility_level = 0 <
#ch
de, besides the output of postconf -n below?
Thanks in advance for your support,
Marco
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
debugger_command =
Viktor, thanks a lot for your time. it is now cristal clear to me... i owe
you a beer! :-)
Kind regards,
Pete.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 06:02:00 AM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni via
Postfix-users wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:12:57AM +0800, LinuxMail.cc via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi everybody...
i think Wietse has explaned this before, but i cannot find the posts, so please
excuse with me if i ask this again.
I would like to clearify with myslef how Postfix smtp daemon deals with remote
MXs of a destination.
1.- When there are different MX with different weight but the DN
Hi all,
is it possible to have several Postfix instances to use a centralized Postfix
server for address verification probes when this centralized server is NOT an
MDA but a relay to external MDAs?
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
___
Postfix-users mailing list
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 08:46:01 PM GMT+1, Vince Heuser via
Postfix-users wrote:
>I recently upgraded to mail_version = 3.4.23
>Suddenly, Postfix no longer logs the lines with IP addresses for the
>connections.
>There use to be some additional log lines with sender ip addresses.
Thanks Wietse, yes it is clear in your doc, but both messages go through
filter?? despite what the MAIL FROM is?
Thanks,
Pedro.
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 03:34:34 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
> To my understanding,
Hi all,
after reading the documention from Viktor and Wietse about this issue, there is
still something i do not have clear enough... Please excuse me!
How does Postfix behave with the smuggled email? i mean... what happens with
Milters and after-queue filters?
To my understanding, the Smuggled
Thanks Wietse, sometimes we want to stretch Postifx like gum beyond limits...
Thanks again, Mr!
Pete.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 02:32:11 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
Pedro David Marco via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
> Postfix documentation states clearl
Microsoft incident EX680695 (sorry if i recall wrongly).
Solved now!
Pete.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 03:24:03 PM GMT+2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
via Postfix-users wrote:
On 11.10.23 15:06, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users wrote:
>Since this morning, various MX hosts in *.mail.pr
Hi,
Postfix documentation states clearly that XFORDWARD is intended for scenarios
like this:
Client -> MTA1-> Content_filter -> MTA2
And then Content_filter is able to get the IP of Client. Works great!
But i was wondering... what i chain more MTAs?
Client -> MTA1 - > MTA2 -> Content_filter ->
Hi all,
does anyone know how to use different content_filter based on sender domain?
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Thanks all!!!
digging it
Pete.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 09:45:03 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema via
Postfix-users wrote:
If no-one else posts one, I can post a solution that:
- relies on smtpd_delay_reject=yes to postpone check_policy lookup
until RCPT TO.
- disables the SIZE announcem
Hi all...
Currently Postfix do not show in log the Recipient of emails that exceed
Meesage_size_limit becasue MAIL FROM comes before RCPTO TO... butis there any
nice way of forcing Postfix to reject that email after the RCPTO TO?
I have considered to make a body check like this:
/.{10-}/
Hi all,
Is there anyway to check for potential errors in Postifx confiuration files
before movig them to /etc/postfix
Thanks in advance!
Pete.
+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> Please, is there any way? to have a centralized Verify database?? my
> intention is to reduce the number of probes in Postfix farms...
> Thanks,
You could try https://www.postfix.org/memcache_table.5.html
- Give it enough memory
Hi,
Please, is there any way to have a centralized Verify database?? my intention
is to reduce the number of probes in Postfix farms...
Thanks,
Pete.
Understood!
Thanks a lot Wietse and Viktor!
Tete.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 08:03:36 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Sorry, but i am confused... documentation is accurate, but probably
> not my understading of it...
Instead of arguing about what happens, l
relaytakes place... my understanding was that
unreacahble meant "cannot connect to remote smtp port"...
Thanks again!
Pete.
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 07:52:43 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:55:26PM +0000, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
On Thursday, April 7, 2022, 07:23:14 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:>>Pedro David Marco:>>> Hi,>> Postfix
documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:>>>> smtp_fallback_relay (default:
$fallback_relay):>> Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP desti
Hi,
Postfix documentation about smtp_fallback_relay says:
smtp_fallback_relay (default: $fallback_relay):
Optional list of relay hosts for SMTP destinations that can't be found or
that are unreachable. With Postfix 2.2 and earlier this parameter is called
fallback_relay.
I have destination
On Monday, March 28, 2022, 12:01:58 AM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
| the inspiration for my efforts.
Thanks for your efforts, Wietse... and for all your support in the list!!!
Regards..
Pete.
Thanks a lot...
You understood me correctly! thanks for your kindness...
with the INFO action, a new log line is added by cleanup daemon.. What i was
trying is to make smtp daemon add that header value to its usual log lines..
Thanks,
Pete.
>On Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 04:20:31 PM GMT+1, p
Hi,
is it possible to configure Postfix stmp daemon to add in its log the value of
a specific header?
Thanks!
Pete.
.
10.1.1.1 -> FROM: j...@test.co.uk
10.1.1.2 -> FROM: m...@test.co.uk
I saw many things going around filters and the check_client_access but I
didn't get if it's possible or not.
Appreciate any help! Thank you :-)
All the best,
Marco
>On Thursday, June 17, 2021, 05:16:29 PM GMT+2, João Silva
wrote:
>the logs showed that the smtp process was not resolving domains
Joao,
just to discard an UDP overflood...
paste to the list the result of command # netstat -suna
Pedro.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 5:21 PM Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2021-04-22 16:44, Marco Pizzoli wrote:
>
> > I am afraid you did not get my point.
>
> i dont know your solution then
>
> rpz and qname can be problematic
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/author/wouter_de_vries/ma
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:37 PM Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 2021-04-22 12:58, Marco Pizzoli wrote:
> > Hello,
> > +1 for this Request for Improvement.
> > I also faced this need.
> >
> > Changing the machine solver was, unfortunately, not an option.
>
> w
Hello,
+1 for this Request for Improvement.
I also faced this need.
Changing the machine solver was, unfortunately, not an option.
Thanks
Marco
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:21 PM Simon Wilson
wrote:
> Is there a way to make Postfix/postscreen use a specific DNS server?
>
> Reaso
Hello Wietse,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:48 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marco Pizzoli:
> > Hi all,
> > I have successfully configured VERP to work with my Postfix instance.
> >
> > I see the logs and I effectively see
> > [truncated] /smtpd[999]: unknown[x.x.x.x]:
ng side, the
VERP-ed address in the return-path field.
My issue is that in the log lines following "XVERP" I can only see the
original MAIL FROM address...
My question is about whether there is a way to log the VERP-ed MAIL FROM,
so to be sure about which translation happened.
Thank you very much in advance
Marco
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 10:55:04 PM GMT+1, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote: >- For *SQL and LDAP, change is immediate.
>- For indexed tables, when switching to a new client connection.
>- For flat files (CIDR, PCRE, ..., main.cf), worst case $max_idle
> times $max_use, but typically of course
Thanks Viktor and Wietse... i will keep digging it out!!
My understading was what you said, so probably the problem is anywhere else...
thanks again!
Pedreter.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 05:23:04 PM GMT+1, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Pedro David Ma
Ops, forgot to mention that, thanks Wietse...
postfix restart means 'postfix stop ; postfix start'
maybe it would be a good idea to introduce some delay between stop and start?
Thanks,
Pedreter.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, 04:54:38 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro D
Hi!
i have this in my main.cf:
address_verify_transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport_para_vrfy
It works ok when i add a new domain, but when i modify an exsiting one and do
the corresponding postmap and postfix restart, randomlysome Postfix smtpd
processes (not all of them!!!) keeps trying
Thanks, Ron, Wietse, and Viktor... i will put an eye on this, having in mind
all your remarks...
Pete
On Monday, October 26, 2020, 10:46:51 PM GMT+1, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Bill Cole:
> On 26 Oct 2020, at 6:07, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> > Hi...
> > flush
>On Monday, October 26, 2020, 05:31:05 PM GMT+1, Ron Wheeler
wrote: >
>Could be just that the other end was busy receiving someone else's mail.
Takes 2 to tango!
>No big attachments?
Thanks Ron... size no bigger than 500KB... if remote is busy... in the log at
least i should see
>On Monday, October 26, 2020, 05:09:41 PM GMT+1, Ron Wheeler
wrote:
>You might want to take a look at what is in the queue.
>Flushing the queue means communicating with other mail servers and the reason
>that mail is in the queue is that it was "too hard" to deliver it the first
>tim
Hi...
flushing the queue with 'postqueue -f'' normally produces instant flush but
sometimes it takes some time to do it... it always works! but sometimes with a
long delay...
just out of curiosity... why does this happen? is it qmgr daemon waiting for
anything? is there any way for force it?
T
ueue_id and counting the different "orig_to" fields, where they are
present. So it is possible, but the operation is quite complex.
Many thanks
Cheers
Marco
Hi!
Is it possible to make Postfix Reject instead of warn for "Illegal address
syntax"?
Thanks!
P.
level{'calm'}++;
Thanks Wietse!
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 6:08:11 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> I use Devuan Ascii. It uses GLIBC 2.24
> My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals
> with deferred emails...
as good as it gets... thanks Viktor!
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 5:53:53 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Pedro David Marco
> wrote:
>
> My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals with
> deferred ema
I use Devuan Ascii. It uses GLIBC 2.24
My main concern is that this problem may affect how postfix deals with deferred
emails... What do you think, Wietse?
Thanks,
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 4:53:45 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Thanks Ma
shows UTC time despite system localtime, while
other postfix elements, like headers added to the email, use localtime (CEST in
my case)...
Thanks...
Pedro.
On Thursday, October 24, 2019, 2:21:34 PM GMT+2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
On 24.10.19 09:05, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>Normal
that most lilkely Postfix cannot read some file
somewhere... but i have checked files permisisons and i have not any clue..
there are no errors in Posfrix log.
Thanks again,
Pedro.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 10:43:49 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Tha
Thanks Wietse..
The output is this:
# date ; env - dateWed Oct 23 21:22:20 CEST 2019Wed Oct 23 21:22:20 CEST 2019#
It is actual valid localtime...
Thanks again,
Pedro.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 3:56:51 PM GMT+2, Wietse Venema
wrote:
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> my P
R-DAEMON@, even if you change the
empty_address_recipient.
As you suggest, I think I have to define some transport for
MAILER-DAEMON recipient address. Otherwise I get double-bounce.
Warm Regards
Marco
is some specification to
always accept these recipients, or if I made some mistakes in my conf.
mail_version = 3.3.2
Thank you very much
Marco
server, just to confirm to me that everything is fine, please let me
know.
Thanks, and off to dinner and bed now...
Marco
postconf -n:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec
address'.
The second type is the notifications from gmail that they won't accept
my email because of the ipv6 mismatch I already reported.
If I misunderstood what you are asking, please tell me where/how to
get it, no problem. Ditto if you want to receive the complete log
privately, without any editing.
Thanks in advance,
Marco
erfacing is always difficult. If you are running ipv6, and don’t
> need it, turn it off. Maybe Gmail will be ok then
>
> robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:52, Marco Fioretti wrote:
> >
> > Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 17:03 Matus UHLAR - fan
;
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> Robert Chalmers
> https://robert-chalmers.uk
> aut...@robert-chalmers.uk
> @R_A_Chalmers
>
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 4:44 pm, Marco Fioretti wrote:
>
> OK, I removed that part of the procmail line, and restarted. Here is
&
t mind
removing that part of the line!
But if you check the output of postconf -Mf that I posted a few minutes ago...
now the question becomes "why there is a warning about "user=myvmail_user"?
As far as I can see, this postfix+procmail part of the system is
working as expected now. It
is "only" gmail interfacing and webmail configuration that are still giving me
pains.
Marco
OK, I removed that part of the procmail line, and restarted. Here is
output of postconf -Mf and, respectively, postconf -n
(just for my own knowledge: this has nothing to do with the ipv6
complaints from google, or has it?)
Thanks,
Marco
###
smtp
>
> Like /use/sbin/master -D type of thing?
>
> Turn on verbose output with a -v and see if you can catch it.
>
>
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 3:49 pm, Marco Fioretti wrote:
> >
> > Hello Robert,
> > there is no "-D" in
, it had always
worked as expected, and never given me reasons to remember its
existence. Do you mean that the "flags=D" setting is obsolete in the
current version of postfix?
Marco
Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 16:36 Robert Chalmers
ha scritto:
>
> You may actually have a -D w
:47, Robert Chalmers wrote:
>
> Where/what is the -D in your master.cf file
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 14:35, Marco Fioretti wrote:
>
> /etc/postfix/master.cf: unused
> parameter: flags=D"
>
>
>
/postfix/mymaps/vhosts.map
virtual_mailbox_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/mymaps/vmailboxes.map
virtual_transport = procmail
virtual_uid_maps = static:1001
postconf: warning: /etc/postfix/master.cf: unused parameter: flags=D
THANKS,
Marco
(*) please don't ask why this mismatch... it is one more of the things
that
a
scritto:
>
> Marco Fioretti skrev den 2018-12-11 11:35:
>
> > IMAPS: not working yet because of SSL "no shared cipher". Details
> > here: https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2018-December/113862.html
>
> current SSL dovecot settings in conf.d/10-ssl.con
hello all,
this is the same server, same situation for which I asked for help
yesterday. Right now, after trying to test and follow up the advice
received, this is the status:
IMAPS: not working yet because of SSL "no shared cipher". Details
here: https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2018-Decembe
puzzle without knowing what it
represents...
Later,
Marco
really confusing.
Not sure if I can test anything more on the postfix side, until the
reverse pointer gets updated in DNS. Or not?
Thanks,
Marco
>
> Postfix and Dovecot in CentOS systems work fine with that even though
> the daemon runs as user postfix group postfix.
>
> On 12/1
n my postconf -n output is still
very welcome (as I said, right now I am running postfix 2.10.1, while
the config files I am using are from a
2.5/2.6 installation, I do not remember exactly)
Thanks,
Marco
> On 10 Dec 2018, at 8:08 am, Marco Fioretti wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
Greetings,
I had my personal postfix/dovecot server, configured for some of my
own domains, running without problems on a linux VPS. For reasons
totally out of my control, I had to migrate everything to another VPS
two days ago, without notice, (details at the bottom if anybody is
interested...),
Hi,
sorry for the semi-off-topic, but as Docusign is using Postfix and they may
have issues... is there anyone from DocuSign in the list?
If so, please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
PedroD
y
"!pattern" to exclude a name from the list.
Would that work for you?
Yes, of course.
Many thanks for considering this.
Marco
e also these domains in a file,
mysql, tcp or ldap... It should be nice if a future release of Postfix
could support "type:table" on "masquerade_domains".
Thank you very much
Marco
>On Thursday, May 31, 2018, 9:57:17 AM GMT+2, Maurizio Caloro
wrote: >Hello Together
>>I ask me if are possible to view on console with postfix command witch
mail’s are holding back, Status mailtraffic, and so on not mail.log about
different reasons - blacklisted, spam, or score - and
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 6:07:01 PM GMT+2, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>More specifically, it is implemented in trivial-rewrite(8)
>and is used indirectly by qmgr(8) to schedule deliveries
>for the appropriate nexthop. The smtp(8) delivery agent
>does not perform nexthop selection, it sends
>Wietse Venema:
> Pedro David Marco:
> > Hi,
> > with Postfix 2.11 i am tryting to use a relayhost for non-local mail..
> > if i put:
> > relayhost = [192.168.1.10]
> > in main.cf, then it works ok.
> >
> > But if i p
Hi,
with Postfix 2.11 i am tryting to use a relayhost for non-local mail..
if i put:
relayhost = [192.168.1.10]
in main.cf, then it works ok.
But if i put it in master.cf like this:
smtp unix - - - - - smtp
-o relayhost=[192.168.1.10]
then it does not w
eventually get my sending slow
again...
Thank you in advance for everything you can develop in order to overcome
this limitation.
Marco
P.s. As a side note: the second limitation I face in using Postfix for bulk
email sending is the missing "MX-rollup" feature I already reported twic
; and transport it using a specific gateway?
>
I already asked in the past:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Feature-request-MX-rollup-td90800.html
Marco
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
hieve the intended behaviour?
Thank you in advance for your help
Marco
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:11:23PM +0200, Marco Pizzoli wrote:
>
> > Have a look at:
> > - smtp_tls_session_cache_database <-- this is the most important thing.
> I
> > suggest lmdb as the backing store
>
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:57 PM, mark burdett wrote:
> That's true, as a work-around. Unfortunately we're talking about not just
> opening a new TCP connection but also reestablishing TLS, which means yet
> more RTT and CPU. So the increased concurrency will be significant and
> will require up
>http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_fallback_relay
>
> Wietse
Wietse,
is there any chance to suggest a future feature to have this done via the
transport file?
PedroD
.com/posts/20160516_port25_announces_release_of_powermta_v45r5/
I guess that the matter is to create a daemon receiving MX information from
smtp clients and making them available to the scheduler.
Thanks in advance
Marco
have a lot of mail users, as
one single mail with a lot of recipients will slow-down the delivery
until all the "sub-deliveries" are handled for a specific server.
Marco
Il 19. 05. 17 16:02, richard lucassen ha scritto:
On Fri, 19 May 2017 15:52:05 +0200
marco wrote:
So if I unde
n not happy with this.
Marco
*
*default_destination_recipient_limit = 25
*
Of course this slows down the delivery, however it is not a big problem
unless all the recipients are handled by a restricted number of MX (and
this is not usual)
I'm now running less intensive mail servers, so maybe some tuning is
need in this phase.
Marco
Il 1
Hello.
Tnx, however I'm not using the python version but the compiled one, and
there is nowhere a policyd-spd.conf file nor a man page.
Marco
Il 10. 05. 17 16:49, Dominic Raferd ha scritto:
On 10 May 2017 at 15:27, marco <mailto:marco.brign...@marcobaldo.ch>> wrote:
installation, and then
collect the policyd_spf answers to verify the efficieny of SPF for my
sites (currently I see a lot of DONNO even for Google)
Tnx
Marco
duce the network dependency.
Worth a try.
Marco
POP3 server to Dovecot and making
use of its "sync" capabilities, but again I would appreciate hearing other
ideas...
Thank you in advance
Marco
deally, a way to see the process name something
like "master-instance1"
i.e. rspamd does exactly this, assigning a different process name just to
explicit the "incarnation" of that process
Thank you in advance
Marco
>Given your smtpd_mumble_restrictions rule, permit_mynetworks allows
>a client to skip the reject_unverified_whatever check.
> Wietse
why Wietse? permit_mynetworks is on first place and should basically only allow
loopback according tomynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [:::127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128
Thanks Wietse but the sending IP is not listed in $mytetworks...
---Pedro.
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Recipient verification with sending IP equal to probe IP
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi!
> I am doing recipient a
Hi!
I am doing recipient address verification with reject_unverified _recipient
and it works pretty well, but i havenoticed that when the sending IP is the
same as the vrfy probing IP address, then this restriction is not applied.
does it make sense?
i have this in in my main.cf:
mynetworks =
Great... Thanks+=10 Noel!!
-Pedro
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: feedback about reject_non_fqdn_sender restriction...
On 11/22/2016 4:22 AM, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i was wonderin
Pedro David Marco:
> Hi,
> i am seeing lines in postfix logs like this:
> postfix/qmgr[1084]: 955AE4009A: from= burk...@server1.domainomitted.com>, size=10346, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> please note the "space" in the user part of the from between cesar and burklez
&
Fool me...
crystal clear!
Thanks Boris, Danke!
From: Boris Behrens
To: Pedro David Marco
Cc: Postfix Users
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: space character in email address
Check this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Local-part
- space
Hi,
i was wondering to what extent is it a good idea to use to use the sender
restriction "reject_non_fqdn_sender" to block some spam...
is anyone using it? any feedback, please?
what would happen with mails from <> ??
Thanks in advance,
---Pedro
Hi,
i am seeing lines in postfix logs like this:
postfix/qmgr[1084]: 955AE4009A: from=,
size=10346, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
please note the "space" in the user part of the from between cesar and burklez
my understading was that no space was allowed in an email addresss...
am i right?
Regards,
---
Hello Wietse,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marco Pizzoli:
> > Hi all,
> > I am sending a bunch of emails to a set of target domains.
> > I see that many of them are all served by the same MTA and this MTA is
> > limiting my sending because
?
Thanks in advance
Marco
Sorry, my fault...
From: Bill Cole
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: REJECT and "optional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 9:24, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Bill...
> this is my restrictions config:
>
>
>
ional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 7:52, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> yes, i have a check_sender_access - after- the check_client_access,
> buti must be doing something wrong because the reject should have been
> done
Thanks Bill...
this is my restrictions config:
From: Bill Cole
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: REJECT and "optional text" question...
On 26 Jul 2016, at 7:52, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> yes, i have a
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
