* Thomas Landauer via Postfix-users [241126 11:43]:
> * At https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_tls_security_level and
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_tls_security_level
> Sorry, but the text doesn't say what "empty" means. Is this the same as
> "none" or not?
The man page
* Randy Bush via Postfix-users [241120 23:52]:
> Debian 12
> mail_version = 3.7.11
> unbound
>
> note third line "hostname mon1.rg.met does not resolve to address
> 2001:418:1::35:"
>
> 2024-11-20T18:41:31.875723+00:00 m0 postfix/postscreen[24315]: CONNECT
> from [2001:418:1::35]:51410 to
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]:
> The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
> workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
"From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe). But I don't think Reply-To
affects SPF at all, and only DKIM if the Reply-To header
* Marvin Renich via Postfix-users [241018 08:14]:
> My apologies! I had explicitly set Reply-To, and expected the mailing
> list software to _not_ replace it.
Okay, it seems that the list software _adds_ the original sender to the
existing Reply-To header. So if I don't set Reply-
* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users [241017 14:23]:
> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
> :
> |[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list \
> |etiquette.]
>
> How about adding a Mail-Followup-To: header then?
> Even though it never became a standard, that is even mor
[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list etiquette.]
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [241017 09:31]:
>
> Marvin,
>
> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
> > [...]
> >> - Rerun a docker build & docker push as soon as the unde
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [241016 20:10]:
> Package maintainers are usually split into two different approaches:
>
> - a) Some built containers directly from *their* source, only using the
> inside distribution as a help to build their own binaries.
>
> advantages:
> - always
* Peter via Postfix-users [240117 04:57]:
> On 16/01/24 17:26, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> same work? At any rate, it's really up to someone in the Debian community
> to step up and do that, and I'm not trying to volunteer you for the job, it
Scott is an official Debian Develop
Many thanks, Scott, for keeping the official Debian postfix packages
up-to-date. It is very much appreciated by me and, I am sure, by many
others.
...Marvin
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pos
* Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users [230815 05:10]:
> Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-08-15 10:44:
>
> > This is a bad idea for several reasons. If you want submission use
> > ports 465 and/or 587 as they are intended. Don't try to use a service
> > that is meant for a different purpose f
* Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users [230315 11:11]:
> On 3/15/23 10:36, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users wrote:
> > That technical issue aside, in this thread there have been two posters
> > who expressed a desire to keep the tags, one said get rid of it in
> > users, but k
* Matthias Andree via Postfix-users [230311 10:48]:
> Am 10.03.23 um 17:12 schrieb Marvin Renich via Postfix-users:
> > Additionally, every MUA that I know of recognizes a subject beginning
> > with "Re:" or "RE:" and when replying avoids duplicating this in th
* Cooper, Robert A via Postfix-users [230310 09:59]:
> I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to
> have gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like
> list prefixes. It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that
> may or may not be present from an
* Mal via Postfix-users [230310 03:23]:
>
>
> On 10/03/2023 5:24 pm, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I was also quite happy with
> > no tags at all.
>
> +1 no tags
I wholeheartedly agree. The subject tag hinders, rather than helps,
reading list mail. The List-Id provides better
14 matches
Mail list logo
