> Does anyone know of any open source implementations of ETSI's
> "Registered Email" standard (ETSI TS 102 640)? I think this is
> different than Italy's "Certified Email" (RFC 6109).
Is this on anyone's radar? Is there a better place to discuss?
Greetings,
Does anyone know of any open source implementations of ETSI's
"Registered Email" standard (ETSI TS 102 640)? I think this is
different than Italy's "Certified Email" (RFC 6109).
I had a quick search of the archives, but nothing came up at all, and
Google searches don't turn up anything
On 2/10/14, Michal Bruncko wrote:
> > * A custom smtpd instance listening on the loopback interface on port
> > 10025
> as you can see from you policy posted at the end of your post - you can
> simply allow postfix to bind to port 10025 using command:
> setsebool -P allow_ypbind=on
> (parameter -P
I have Postfix running on CentOS 6 with SELinux in enforcing targeted
mode. By default, SELinux will block the following two components of
my system:
* A custom smtpd instance listening on the loopback interface on port 10025
* Using Postfix virtual as the delivery agent to maildirs that are not
> This text is about CLIENT certificates, that is:
>
> smtp_tls_cert_file
> smtp_tls_key_file
>
> You're making a concerted effort
Why do you say something like this?
> to confuse these with SERVER certificates,
> that is:
>
> smtpd_tls_cert_file
> smtpd_tls_key_fi
>> smtp_tls_CAfile
>
> As for this, you typically don't need it and can leave it blank.
Same goes for smtp_tls_CApath I presume
Thanks again
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 01:06:22AM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>
>> smtpd_tls_security_level = may
>>
>> (so only want opportunistic encryption, no cert validation, etc) the
>> TLS_README suggests that
Using:
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
(so only want opportunistic encryption, no cert validation, etc) the
TLS_README suggests that it's best to just leave blank
smtpd_tls_cert_file
smtpd_tls_key_file
smtp_tls_CAfile/path
Question: so then does Postfix use some kind of internally generated
self
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ori Bani:
>> I read somewhere on this list that it's not necessary to use proxymap
>> for transport table lookups.
>
> It is undesirable with the current architecture, because it increases
> latency for the
I read somewhere on this list that it's not necessary to use proxymap
for transport table lookups.
I guess that the assumption is the transport table is so small, making
it unnecessary?
The proxymap manpage says one of its main purposes is to consolidate
connections to databases amongst various p
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ori Bani:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > Ori Bani:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Noel Jones
>> >>
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Ori Bani wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Ori Bani:
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> > On 8/14/2012 5:14 AM, Ori Bani wrote:
>>> >> I'm curious, if you
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ori Bani:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> > On 8/14/2012 5:14 AM, Ori Bani wrote:
>> >> I'm curious, if you have a smtpd service in master.cf that listens on
>> >> an
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 5:14 AM, Ori Bani wrote:
>> I'm curious, if you have a smtpd service in master.cf that listens on
>> an IP address, if it would be possible to restrict the recipient maps
>> just to the recipients in the d
I'm curious, if you have a smtpd service in master.cf that listens on
an IP address, if it would be possible to restrict the recipient maps
just to the recipients in the domain associated with that IP address
(there are other smtpd services/domains/IP addresses on the same
postfix instance).
I tri
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:33:53PM -0700, Marty Beckler wrote:
>
>> Transport next hops can have MX lookups disabled by adding [] around
>> the next hop.
>>
>> Is it possible to define a transport that always has MX lookups
>> disabled with
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marty Beckler:
>> Transport next hops can have MX lookups disabled by adding [] around
>> the next hop.
>>
>> Is it possible to define a transport that always has MX lookups
>> disabled without specifying the next hop?
>
> /etc/postfix/transp
>> Questions about address verification:
>>
>> I don't quite understand the difference between
>> address_verify_negative_expire_time and
>> address_verify_negative_refresh_time. If an address needs to be
>> refreshed anyway, does it make any difference whether or not it was
>> "expired"? What us
Hello,
Questions about address verification:
I don't quite understand the difference between
address_verify_negative_expire_time and
address_verify_negative_refresh_time. If an address needs to be
refreshed anyway, does it make any difference whether or not it was
"expired"? What use is the exp
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:11:57AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
>> I recently saw Exim reject/not deliver mail based on this old, expired draft:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delany-nullmx-00
>>
>> What ever became of that one?
>
Hello Ralf,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Marcus Mülbüsch :
>> Hello all,
>>
>> is it possible to configure postfix in a way that it forwards
>> incoming mails to an external mail-server, but in a way that only the
>> subject line is sent; not the mail itself?
>
>> I'd like to know if anyone here has any thoughts or opinions about the
>> best linux filesystem to use for an email system. There will be some
>> small amount of website data on the system (including webmail to read
>> the emails), although I could move that to another partition if need
>> be.
>
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 8:24 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>
>> I would stay away from btrfs until it is much more mature. As a general
>> rule (very general) mail systems stress allocation and metadata
>> efficiency more than sustained data flow, so you'd want to
Thank you for the reply and sorry for the delay in responding.
>> I'd like to know if anyone here has any thoughts or opinions about the
>> best linux filesystem to use for an email system. There will be some
>> small amount of website data on the system (including webmail to read
>> the emails),
Hi,
I'd like to know if anyone here has any thoughts or opinions about the
best linux filesystem to use for an email system. There will be some
small amount of website data on the system (including webmail to read
the emails), although I could move that to another partition if need
be.
Anyone use
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Simon Brereton
wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012 11:20 PM, "ml" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le mercredi 01 février 2012 à 19:30 -0800, Ori Bani a écrit :
>> > 2012/2/1 ml :
>> > >
>> > > Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 03
2012/2/1 ml :
>
> Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 03:13 +0100, ml a écrit :
>> Le mercredi 01 février 2012 à 23:01 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> >
>> > Am 01.02.2012 22:56, schrieb Ori Bani:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Wietse Venema
>>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.02.2012 22:56, schrieb Ori Bani:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> [An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
>>> http://www.postfix.org/announcements/po
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> [An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
> http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.9.0.html]
>
> Postfix stable release 2.9.0 is available. The main changes in no
> particular order are:
>
Does anyone know how soon
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:47:39PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
>> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
>
> The answ
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Ori Bani :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
>> queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
>>
>> In my case, I have v
Hello,
I'm curious to get feedback on the idea of mounting all the postfix
queue directories on a faster media (SSD drive in this case).
In my case, I have virtual maildirs under /var/spool/postfix and those
would be relocated to elsewhere (onto slower normal media) because the
faster (SSD) media
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:19 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:16:34PM -0800, Ori Bani wrote:
>> I am evaluating a potential move of a mail server from a dedicated
>> server to a cloud-based server instance. I am trying to research
>> the cons (I am comforta
Hello,
I am evaluating a potential move of a mail server from a dedicated
server to a cloud-based server instance. I am trying to research the
cons (I am comfortable with the pros) of doing so.
>From what I can tell, we have to consider possible performance issues
(e.g., I/O contention), althoug
34 matches
Mail list logo
