Did this opportunity provide any meaningful changes in
documentation/usability? Any rebukes or insights to share some 90 days
later?
- Matt
On 10/9/2024 9:34 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Matt Saladna via Postfix-users:
On 10/8/2024 6:36 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
expectation.
I'm leaning toward LMDB specifically. Advice?
- Matt
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
ether to read the full text.
There isn't a future for sparse/unparseable documentation with respect
to next-generational parsing. Eventually documentation has to drive
toward GPT-friendly construction.
- Matt
___
Postfix-users mailing list
on port, so I can also just
install my self-signed CA there (eg. on my iphone) so this isn't a
problem. But I see your point.
--
Matt
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
it easier to just used self-signed certificates in this case? I
really don't understand the benefits of letsencrypt in the mail server
use case, when DANE works just fine with certificates that you can
generate yourself and don't have to deal with LE's
On 2024-06-19 02:27, Matt Kinni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
>> ...
>> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
>> ...
> I've found this to block some legitimat
On 2024-06-16 15:21, Cody Millard via Postfix-users wrote:
> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
> ...
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
> ...
I've found this to block some legitimate mails in the past from Bank of
America, so you may want to grep your logs for "Helo command rejected:
Host not fo
cially)
Ding ding.
- Matt
On 3/15/2024 1:11 PM, Matt Saladna via Postfix-users wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking a workaround for Microsoft's litany of IPs landing on
DNSBL. They'd like all mail irrespective of DNSBL status to be
delivered, which requires a skip if the sender IP is bla
0.[0;1;2].[0..254]*2 list.dnswl.org*-2
- Matt
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Thanks, I misunderstood the format as -o export_environment = {TZ
MAIL_CONFIG X=Y} from postconf(5) => export_environment. For the sake of
completeness, -o { export_environment = LANG TZ X=${y} } in master.cf
and defining y=z in main.cf does exactly what I want.
- Matt
On 9/26/2023 7:51
vmaildrop unix - n n - 20 pipe
flags=XODRhu user=mail argv=/usr/bin/env X=Y /usr/bin/maildrop
Is there a better approach?
- Matt
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
Are you just talking about backing up the config files in /etc/postfix?
I would recommend using git for version control; there is nothing special about
backing up the postfix configs vis a vis any other service on your machine. It
also wouldn’t hurt to take periodic snapshots of your VMs
Sent f
liver (acting as SMTPD
when receiving incoming flows and SMTP client when relaying flows to remote
SMTPD servers);
- MSA when authenticated users submit emails whose should be relayed to
recipient(s).
hth
--
matt [at] lv223.org
GPG key ID: 7D91A8CA
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I have opendkim configured via 'smtpd_milters' to sign all outbound
mail, and my domain publishes a "quarantine" dmarc record to enforce the
consequences of this.
I recently discovered that MAILER-DAEMON messages generated by postfix
itself bypass this setup and do /not/ get signed, which unfo
Appreciate the response
Thanks
--
Matt
/setroubleshoot/setroubleshoot/-/merge_requests/15
Thanks
--
Matt
On 9/16/21 12:15, Wietse Venema wrote:
Matt Corallo:
Can you describe in more detail what line_length_limit does? I
You are confusing two different parameters
- smtp_line_length_limit. This applies to SMTP.
- line_length_limit. Does not apply to SMTP.
Postfix will happily deliver mail
Can you describe in more detail what line_length_limit does? I guess part of my
question here is I don’t understand it’s purpose and thus why it
doesn’t/couldn’t apply here.
> On Sep 16, 2021, at 05:06, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Matt Corallo:
>> When debugging a DKIM signa
ay to work around this at the
Postfix-level without writing a custom milter. Is there any desire to adapt line_length_limit to
apply in this case?
Thanks,
Matt
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 13:29, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:16:25PM -0700, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
>> I’m not particularly worried about congestion on this server, but maybe
>> delay is the wrong warning to focus on - I’d like postmaster no
> On Aug 26, 2021, at 13:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On 26 Aug 2021, at 4:02 pm, Matt Corallo wrote:
>> I’d like to set an aggressive warning delay but only warn postmaster, not
>> the sender. It appears delay_warning_time is used for both sender-warnings
I’d like to set an aggressive warning delay but only warn postmaster, not the
sender. It appears delay_warning_time is used for both sender-warnings and
notify_classes, so there doesn’t appear to be a way to do this.
On 8/24/21 19:23, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On 24 Aug 2021, at 7:58 pm, Matt Corallo wrote:
May be worth mentioning here that, sadly, Postfix does not support MTA-STS
currently.
The one implementation at https://github.com/Snawoot/postfix-mta-sts-resolver/
will reduce security rather than
forcing DANE [2] so there's
probably not use bothering in any case.
[1] https://github.com/Snawoot/postfix-mta-sts-resolver/issues/67
[2]
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/roadmap?filters=&searchterms=dnssec
Matt
t; turned on for the sending IP things are still insta-spam-boxed. The MailOps list
is filled with people in similar boats, and at least a few have given up and just relay to Microsoft as well.
Matt
On 8/12/21 09:37, Wietse Venema wrote:
Matt Corallo:
I tried variations of this but never could get it to work - as far as I could
tell the nexthop is fully resolved by the
time we get to the smtp daemon, so there aren't any relevant settings to
override or otherwise set the default o
I tried variations of this but never could get it to work - as far as I could tell the nexthop is fully resolved by the
time we get to the smtp daemon, so there aren't any relevant settings to override or otherwise set the default on the
nexthop there.
Thanks,
Matt
On 8/11/21 17:37, W
smtp nexthop without modifying
the mail itself.
Thanks,
Matt
On 8/11/21 13:54, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On 11 Aug 2021, at 11:00 am, Matt Corallo wrote:
Hmm, well I suppose consider this a feature request for
sender_dependent_relay_transport_maps or sender_dependent_transport_maps :)
No such feature fits into a single-key lookup design.
You&#x
Hmm, well I suppose consider this a feature request for
sender_dependent_relay_transport_maps or sender_dependent_transport_maps :)
Matt
> On Aug 10, 2021, at 23:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:34:52PM -0400, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
>> I have
Oh, and if its possible, is it also possible to specify the original domains as "any domain with an MX of $REGEX"
instead of only "any recipient domain of $REGEX"?
Thanks,
Matt
On 8/10/21 22:34, Matt Corallo wrote:
I have a need to map some destination domains to a specif
option as I don't want to change the delivery of mail that isn't either
from one of the sender_dependent rules or to one of the specified domains.
Am I missing something or is there some way to do a custom rewrite engine?
Thanks,
Matt
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:06:02PM -0500, Matt Shields wrote:
>
>
I'll take a look at all the suggestions.
For below, this is just an internal server(behind firewall) with no
internet facing ports. We use Office365 for
cript that sends as r...@host2.lan, rewrite FROM as
sysad...@mycompany.com
c. For any host not defined, change the FROM address to
nore...@mycompany.com
2. Rewrite the TO address
a. host4.lan strip all TO addresses that do not match @mycompany.com. On
some systems (dev/qa) we do not want to
Greetings!
I'm able to log the mail headers with:
/etc/postfix/header_checks
/to:/ WARN
etc.
and
/etc/postfix/main.cf
header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks
How do I log envelope fields for received mail?
Thanks for any pointers!
-m
Greetings Postfix Users,
I have a need to rewrite part of the incoming mail header before local
delivery.
The "To:" header looks like:
To: The default queue via RT
and I need to remove the descriptive part of the email address so that it
looks like:
To:
Sometimes the header will have arbitr
e of malicious code that becomes its own SMTP service or originates
locally. In the past you've laid out a very good case why tracking uids
on the other end of a TCP connection is unreliable, so I've relied on
ESMTPA or the sendmail binary to sift a few thousand users when things
go sou
ix.
Is there an existing solution that would then act as the following?
Something to pass along auth data in the request without requiring ESMTPA.
program => "smtp" binary => unix socket => incoming postdrop manager =>
postdrop => Postfix
- Matt
On 7/23/2020 7:23 PM, Vi
ed
What's an appropriate workaround for this? Add postdrop to the list of
SupplementaryGroups= for the service, open world write access for
/var/spool/postfix/maildrop, or is there a better route? It's a PHP-FPM
pool, which I'd like to tamp down as much as possible.
- Matt
Yep, I set it to prefer v6 to test and was only noting that, at least GMail,
doesn't appear to apply stricter policies
around delivery any more (likely modulo your IP's existing reputation).
On 7/21/20 8:06 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:54:55PM -0400, Matt
o get IPv4 addresses is not an
unreasonable anti-spam measure, but encouraging postfix users to, by default,
accept mail over IPv6 would be nice to
avoid perpetuating this requirement further.
Matt
On 7/21/20 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Wietse Vene
a-sts-resolver, sadly, is
somewhat impractical given restrictions on the
DNS library that is in use.
Matt
On 7/4/20 7:18 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 05:45:18PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 04:35:01PM -0400, Matt Corallo wrote
Right, I figured they were from your stats, but figured I'd ask since I never
saw any MTA-STS data on your site :)
Anyway, I'm happy I didn't misunderstand the state of things, at least. Looking
forward to getting a
"secure-but-also-dane" option in smtp_tls_policy_maps
today it’ll be 2021 at
least (thanks Debian, Redhat, et al).
Matt
> On Jul 4, 2020, at 12:21, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 02:34:15PM -0400, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the response, will see if it makes sense to at least disable
>> MTA-STS
Thanks for the response, will see if it makes sense to at least disable MTA-STS
for DANE-enabled domains at
https://github.com/Snawoot/postfix-mta-sts-resolver/issues/67.
On 7/4/20 2:10 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:54:14PM -0400, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
>&
nd avoid any DNS TTL issues whereby the MTA-STS resolver gets
a different response than Postfix).
Did I miss something? Any chance we could get proper MTA-STS support built into
Postfix?
Thanks,
Matt
k and Ansible is overkill.
- Matt
On 4/6/2020 1:35 AM, Peter wrote:
On 6/04/20 6:26 pm, Matt Saladna wrote:
Hello all,
I provide a base master.cf part of an RPM release that I'd like to
give users the ability to customize without overwriting each RPM
release.
You do realize that all you
happily ever after. Any other approaches to explore as
well?
- Matt
e="YES"
> spamass_milter_socket_owner="postfix"
> spamass_milter_localflags="-u spamd -e -i 65.121.55.40/29 -i 127.0.0.1 -r 10 “
Jumping in the me too boat, also on 11.2 (as far as I can remember this used to
works on FreeBSD 9…)
--
matt [at] lv223.org
GPG key ID: 7D91A8CA
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
MK’s quote:
<http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/How-to-use-the-new-server-TLS-SNI-feature-3-4-x-td100786.html#a100819>
hth
--
matt [at] lv223.org
GPG key ID: 7D91A8CA
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
; Can you tell me how to proceed, please?
>
> Thanks,
Make an header_checks table only for the submission service:
[master.cf]
submission […]
[…]
-o
receive_override_options=header_checks,pcre:$config_directory/header_checks_submission.pcre
[…]
--
matt [at] lv223.org
GPG key ID: 7D91A8
ems this check
is hardcoded in the source.
I also tried mini_sendmail - but as you have to override sendmail
yourself - it gets overridden by package update - but I guess this issue
can be said about just any package-based distribution.
Matt
Am 25.01.2019 um 01:05 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
sy
way" to get it run on opensuse ... still on it.
Matt
Am 24.01.2019 um 23:19 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 11:09:25 PM Matt Wong wrote:
Well, I'll give mini-smtp a try now - let's see if this fits my purposes
better.
About the brain-dead system: isn&
d
options or could be reason for what's happening. So, my guess, postfix
just doesn't fit my needs.
Thanks anyways,
Matt
Am 24.01.2019 um 22:24 schrieb Noel Jones:
On 1/24/2019 3:12 PM, Matt Wong wrote:
Hi Noel Jones,
sadly, this didn't the trick. I can change /etc/postfix/ma
when using mail()
in php in apache, postfix doesn't even try to connect to james. It's in
the logs that postfix got the mail from apache, but it seems nothing
happens after this. Is there something else I have to set?
Thanks in advance,
Matt Wong
Am 23.01.2019 um 20:59 schrieb Noel
postfix to receive mails dropped in by sendmail or postdrop and just
forward them to smtp://127.0.0.1:25/.
Neither sendmail configs nor postfix configs provide such options - but
there's also no simple drop-in sendmail replacement offering this
behaviour to use it with another MTA software.
Matt
if the IP is OK or KO.
>
>
> For postfix configuration I think that I must do that:
>
> * master.cf:
>
> policy-geoip unix - n n - 0 spawn
>
> user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/policyd-geoip
>
> * main.cf:
>
> check_policy_service unix:private/policy-geoip
>
>
I feared that. Are there any suitable sendmail wrappers that would
provide equivalent functionality?
- Matt
On 12/22/2018 7:47 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 07:32:37PM -0600, Matt Saladna wrote:
I have an odd setup in which each base directory contains a complete
e would be converted to apisnetworks.com at or
before pickup so that any DSN can route back.
- Matt
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:42 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
> >
> >>> Where is the ".localdomain" coming from?
> >>
> >> It might be read from a file, or it might be set at compile time? The
> >> person packaging Postfix for Debian should know
Greetings,
I'm using Postfix 3.3.1-1+b1 (Debian testing).
I'm testing out the default for myhostname and am a little confused as to
where it is getting its value. I purposefully did not set it in main.cf:
# grep '^ *myhostname' /etc/postfix/main.cf || echo nope
nope
Here is what postfix believe
Hi Wietse,
Sorry for the late response, flu going around.
But is this only on domain base or also per user doable ?
2016-03-08 15:23 GMT+01:00 Wietse Venema :
> Matt .:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a way to send (B)CC messages to a specified external email
>> address whe
Nice!
I will test it tomorrow right away with some mysql lookups. That works
the same as for virtual lookups ?
2016-03-18 1:08 GMT+01:00 Wietse Venema :
> Matt .:
>> Is there a way to send (B)CC messages to a specified external email
>> address when I send to a local address ?
&g
OK, thanks!
2016-03-19 15:08 GMT+01:00 Wietse Venema :
> Matt .:
>> I will test it tomorrow right away with some mysql lookups. That works
>> the same as for virtual lookups ?
>
> Wietse:
>> No. See http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#sender_bcc_maps
>
> Matt .
Is there a way to only BCC when the mail stays "local" on the machine
and doesn't out outside, so the domains it knows ?
2016-03-19 2:12 GMT+01:00 Wietse Venema :
> Matt .:
>> I will test it tomorrow right away with some mysql lookups. That works
>> the same as fo
ssible for most
lookups in Postfix.
Thanks,
Matt
Firstly, thanks for all the replies. Forget I said best practices, I agree
it's a rubbish term - what I really meant was the best way to achieve what
I want.
I suppose I really have two requirements. 1) Monitoring devices that use
this Postfix installation as a relay should be able to set the FR
I'm trying to find the correct/best practice method for setting up a black
hole email address for such items as "noreply" addresses when sending
alerts from monitoring devices etc.
I have come across a couple of tutorials which has instructions such as:
---
On 18 November 2015 at 16:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> This ends with:
>
> Nov 18 10:28:52 mailserver postfix/smtpd[31664]: < unknown[1.1.1.1]:
> RCPT TO:
> ...
> Nov 18 10:28:52 mailserver postfix/smtpd[31664]: > unknown[1.1.1.1]:
> 250 2.1.5 Ok
> ...
> Nov 18 10:28:52 mailse
ory,
>CPU, disk and network may well be able to handle 1000 or more
>concurrent connections.
>
>That said, your sending software does not benefit from opening a
>huge number of connections, around 20 is usually quite enough for
Getting pretty convinced now that this is not a multiple connection issue
I'll have to dig into how to print anvil stats to see if I can prove it.
Thanks,
Matt
worry about overloading my clients mail servers? I see
> that delivery limits are configured elsewhere so I don’t think this will be
> an issue so I’m just checking.
>
> We do need to send bulk notifications to our clients so I’m looking for as
> high a value I can sensibly set w
think this will be
an issue so I’m just checking.
We do need to send bulk notifications to our clients so I’m looking for as
high a value I can sensibly set which I can then pass on to our development
team.
Thanks in advance,
Matt
[1] Thunderbird error message.
Sending of the message failed.
The
Thanks Viktor, that worked perfectly!
Are there any plans down the road to add configuration map support for
smtpd processes by interface or IP?
- Matt
On 7/4/2015 8:56 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 01:53:06PM -0400, Matt Saladna wrote:
We have a multi-homed server
per-IP significantly more maintainable.
- Matt
is a small price to pay though, as in
reality I very rarely receive legitimate mail with ZIP attachments.
Any thoughts?
thanks
Matt.
Postfix was doing exactly what I intended, but I
had misread the headers when looking at the mail that arrived at gmail,
and I'd misread my own log files too. I'm really not having a good day :(.
Sorry for wasting your time, and thanks for all your help (and for all
your great work on Postfix over the years!).
Matt.
On 27/04/2014 13:35, Matt Holgate wrote:
What I'm trying to achieve is to forward unextended addresses in my
parent's domain to extended addresses at Gmail.
D'oh, sorry! I just realised I had a catchall address setup as well,
which was causing the problem (i.e. it was not
On 27/04/2014 13:21, Wietse Venema wrote:
Matt Holgate:
Is there any way of avoiding this? I see there is a
'propagate_unmatched_extensions' parameter, but I'd have thought this
would have no effect as there is no extension in the original address.
No that is backwards. It
isable it, unless there's no
alternative.
Many thanks for your help
Matt.
I have a long running postfix setup dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I've
specified the outbound bind addresses for smtp.
smtp unix - - - - - smtp
-o smtp_bind_address=[...]
-o smtp_bind_address6=[...]
I use the host to receive mail to my domain as well as send
= 60s
smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
smtp_destination_recipient_limit = 1
which is for the standard (non slow delivery) and spooled in two messages
(that are not in the smtpslow transport map) and both got delivered
instantly.
Regards
Matt.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postf
)
As per Wietse
smtp_destination_rate_delay = 6 as an alternative to using the debug
command.
Am i right in thinking as the smtpslow then uses smtp for delivery it will
effect both, as in ensure all emails get a 6 second delay.
Thank you both for your quick reply.
Best Regards
Matt
Wait 310s
Email 2 to recipient 1 sent
Etc
How can i adjust the config so that instead of matching the recipients its
matching the domains as if 50 emails go out to hotmail.com at the same time
to different recipients it doesn't try and delvier them all at the same
time.
Best Regards
Matt.
I installed Dovenet and Postfix, this is a error that I'm getting
when I try to send email to my server from Aol or Gmail
here is what i was able to find in /var/log/mail.err
Dec 28 18:02:36 kraner postfix/smtpd[26226]: fatal: no SASL
authentication mechanisms
Dec 28 18:09:17 kraner postfix/s
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>* Matt Horrocks :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm setting up postfix for the first time.
>>
>> In the UK, the entire sky.com <http://sky.com> ip range is on the
>> Spamhaus PBL [http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/query/PBL251585
>>
amhaus.org" setting.
The users should already be authenticated by "smtpd_sender_restrictions
permit_sasl_authenticated", so why does the
"smtpd_recipient_restrictions reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org" check
stop their mail being sent?
Thanks,
Matt
alias_database = has
if it is included in the
higher log levels of smtp_tls_loglevel, but perhaps you might consider
adding a log message such as:
"WARNING remote server advertised support of STARTTLS but
smtp_tls_security_level is defined as none; communications will not be
encrypted."
In any case, thanks for your time and attention. Hopefully someone
finds this conversation helpful when searching the archives.
Matt
ts STARTTLS may want/need to manually change
smtp_tls_security_level to "may" or "encrypt".
Matt
mail.jms1.net/test-auth.shtml (provides most steps necessary)
http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/smtpauth.html (provided the hand-to-forehead
moment when i realized the exchange provider requires AUTH LOGIN, and using
the base64 encoding method above to login interactively)
Thanks :)
Matt Van Mater
On We
server on port 25? (it works awesome on ports
26/27/28/587 so far)
Thanks!
-Matt T
7;m asking is I added a set of lines for RBL reverse DNS and
they don't seem to be having any effect.
Peter,
Can you send us the smtpd_recipient_restrictions line from your main.cf?
Might help to see how you have them ordered and what else you may be
able to add to help benefit you.
-Matt
ions would be appreciated...
Glenn,
Could you provide some error examples from your logs? Showing the
config won't do much if we don't see the errors being generated.
Thanks!
-Matt
>* Matt :
>> >> >>First of all, thank you for reading this! I have the following
>> >> >> two goals:
>> >> >> To a) only allow relaying mail when SASL authenticated, and b) to only
>> >> >> accept
>* Matt :
>> >* Matt :
>> >> First of all, thank you for reading this! I have the following two
>> >> goals:
>> >> To a) only allow relaying mail when SASL authenticated, and b) to only
>> >> accept local (virtual) domains
>* Matt :
>> First of all, thank you for reading this! I have the following two
>> goals:
>> To a) only allow relaying mail when SASL authenticated, and b) to only
>> accept local (virtual) domains in the "MAIL FROM" address when relaying.
>
>Re
simple, yet I have the impression that these two requirements
are not compatible with the rules available. I'd need to be able to have a
different set of rules for authenticated users.
Any hint as to what could be done to achieve this would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks,
- Matt
On 8/18/2011 9:13 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Matt Hayes wrote:
Carlos,
This is a direct quote from a bot running in #postfix on freenode:
Port 587 is submission, for user submission of mail, NOT suitable for mail
exchange. See the commented example in
awg/files/news/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf
Also have a look at:
http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html
-Matt
postfix/smtp[40187]: 1F3274160009:
> to=, relay=none, delay=32, delays=1.9/0.01/30/0,
> dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:
> Connection timed out)
What is on port 10027? from your master.cf file:
> pickup fifo n - n 60 1 pickup -o content_filter=smtp:127.0.0.1:10027
-
e rude than
> this. It is nothing for them to tell you you are lazy and don't know
> what your talking about. if fact, calling people an idiot may be the
> norm there. I never go there anymore, but it is good that the mailing
> list, at least, has people trying to be more polite.
That's because YOU are Lazy, Randy,
Here's bona fide proof of such:
http://sweet.nodns4.us/rramsdell.html
Have a great day!
-Matt
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
