* Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
On 18.09.22 14:00, Stefan Foerster wrote:
[...]
postfix/submission/smtpd[156]: warning: SASL: Connect to Dovecot auth socket
'inet:dovecot:12345' failed: Address not available
this looks like "dovecot" host is not resolvable.
Yes, that&#x
remembered that one. Thanks for reminding me.
Regards
Stefan
hich
would mean the service could accept mails without needing to contact
dovecot at all, so perhaps a runtime error would be a better bet here.
Kind regards
Stefan
* Wietse Venema :
Stefan Foerster:
Mar 17 13:24:40 servername postfix/proxymap[166]: panic: dict_open: attempt to open
lmdb:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache with both "open" lock and "access" lock
...
postscreen_cache_map = proxy:lmdb:$data_directory/postscreen_ca
Hello Wietse,
* Wietse Venema :
Stefan F?rster:
Mar 17 13:24:40 servername postfix/proxymap[166]: panic: dict_open: attempt to open
lmdb:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache with both "open" lock and "access" lock
Please do not open the postscreen cache through the proxym
ieve that I might be
fine without persistence for the postscreen cache.
However, if there is another fix, I'd be glad to hear about that.
Thanks,
Stefan
address_verify_map = proxy:lmdb:${data_directory}/verify_cache
alias_database = lmdb:/etc/postfix/maps/aliases
alias_maps = lmdb:/etc
nclusions.
Thanks Wietse!
Best regards
Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
(however, I did not find anything related in the release notes of newer
versions).
Best regards
Stefan Podskubka
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
server.
It is a privacy service and hopefully should not be abused much, but I need the
option so that users of such allowed domains have the ability to send me a
block request, in case they no longer want to receive email(s) from my service,
due to possible abuse etc.
Regards
Stefan
blocked
from receiving email from my domain, due to abuse of my service,
would be a simple REJECT of his email address in the same
transport map list be sufficient, or does postfix may get confused?
Regards
Stefan
And I had a look at the before-queue filter, but as far as I understand the
documentation, this filter only deals with mails coming from external.
Does anyone has an idea how I could solve this?
Thanks for any hints or suggestions,
Stefan
t; > /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> > > newsgateway unix - - n - - smtp
> > > -o header_checks=pcre:/etc/postfix/news-header-checks.pcre
>
> That should be smtp_header_checks (make changes while delivering),
> not header_checks (make changes while receiving).
Thanks for the correction!
Best regards
Stefan
--
Signal (Desktop) +4915172173279
https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stefan Claas:
> > Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Stefan Claas:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > my postfix mail server works perfectly so far.
> > > >
> > > > However, I am now facing the
think.
>
> > I must admit that I am not an expert, but what I have seen so far, it
> > looks to me that procmail is used for inbound mail. Hope that I am
> > wrong with that.
>
> Procmail can be used for Outbound mail as well.
Thanks, didn't know that.
Regards
Stefan
--
Signal (Desktop) +4915172173279
https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
Gregory Heytings wrote:
>
> Stefan Claas:
> >
> > postfix should modify outgoing email headers that *only* go to mail2news
> > gateways, using the email gateway addresses for parsing, so that the
> > right part of the message ID, after the @ charachter, will b
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 06.04.20 11:01, Stefan Claas wrote:
> >my postfix mail server works perfectly so far.
> >
> >However, I am now facing the following problem and have tried as best as I
> >can to find a solution to this.
> >
> >I run a
Franck MAHE wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> > I would like to achieve the following:
> >
> > postfix should modify outgoing email headers that *only* go to
> > mail2news
> > gateways, using the email gateway addresses for parsing, so that the
> > r
for regular emails.
I would be very grateful for your help!
Greetings
Stefan
--
Signal (Desktop) +4915172173279
https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
kind of Outlooks, entering
postfix via office 365.
Am Samstag, 20. Juli 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> I dont get it. Testing the above correctly shows
>>
>> Subject:
>>
=?Windows-1252?Q?[Cleartext]_Webinar_=84Noch_keine_55_und_ab_in_die_GKV=93?=
>>
wrong
with encoding.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/headerstring
> > /^Subject: .*\[cleartext\].*/ FILTER cleartext:
> >
> > And n
only this single filter is present - no other filters.
Unfortunately thats not enough to trigger the filter.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 14:00 Uhr schrieb pasvon :
> What does the complete file /etc/postfix/headerstring look like?
> Does another line match a filter action and override the desired r
man 5 header_checks
By default, regexp <http://www.postfix.org/regexp_table.5.html>: and
pcre <http://www.postfix.org/pcre_table.5.html>: patterns are
case *insensitive*.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:
> On 1
ideas?
Stefan
Thank you for your answer, but this brings in another piece of software.
Want to keep it simple.
Am Di., 25. Juni 2019 um 13:34 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:
> On 24.06.19 21:42, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >we're publishing lookup tables through our
.
Whate do you recommend?
Thank you.
Stefan
we're pulling all kind of logs and graph them in fancy ways with zabbix.
zabbix has a small client with tiny footprint and can do encrypted transfer
of logs/data to server.
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 22:20 Uhr schrieb PGNet Dev :
> I'm aware of the list of stats tools
>
>http://www.postfix.org/
As microsoft ofers DKIM-singing for outgoing mails at no extra cost, i will
validate this information as 3rd authentication token.
Looks much clearer and several addons for postfix exist to do so.
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
>
> The latter is
Emmanuel,
thank you. That was of great help to see, that others have same isses with
o365.
Do you have any more infos how you do the experimental certificate matching
part with postifx?
thank you in advance
Stefan
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Emmanuel Fusté <
emmanuel
m 22:37 Uhr schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> > Some of our users use o365 but would like to use our service for outgoing
> > mails. We are offering smtp sending services. Integrating
Bill,
yes thats the question. i would consider the two factors as reliable. MS is
signing mails. i just like clear user authentication instead of rely on
volatile ips/blocks, microsoft publishes/changes.
what i need to check is also, whether MS allows spoofing of sender address.
i need to make su
MS is publishing source ips/ranges.
sasl_exeptions_networks seems an option but i still dont like the lack of
authentication.
Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> its like the first:
>>
>> end-user client -> microsoft server -> postfix
its like the first:
end-user client -> microsoft server -> postfix server -> remote recipient
Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> our users send/receive via o365. the last mile o365->recipient should go
>> through our service li
our users send/receive via o365. the last mile o365->recipient should go
through our service like o365->postfix->recipient
here, o365 does not offer smtp auth against postfix.
Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2019 schrieb @lbutlr :
> On 16 Jun2019, at 09:46, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>> som
onntag, 16. Juni 2019 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 04:00:38PM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
>> We are running a small smtp relay service with postfix for authenticated
>> users. Unfortunately office 365 does not offer any smt
from MS ip ranges with valid sender
address could relay through our service. i dont like to open our service
'blind' to MS ip ranges.
Ideas/Thoughts are very welcome.
Stefan
aving 7000-8000 mails / day.
Stefan
Am Fr., 31. Mai 2019 um 18:37 Uhr schrieb Noel Jones :
> On 5/31/2019 1:48 AM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running a pair of postfix-servers in different data-centers
> > (different ip networks) for outgoing-only delive
enter that is
not visible to my users and only fairly with dummy mails used to keep
reputation up and good. Howto re-route traffic on demand with postfix in
case, ip-networks get blocked again?
How do others handle this?
Thank you.
Stefan
which makes also
sense.
Are there workarounds available to re-initiate another MX-lookup for a
recipient in mailqueue when it is undeliverable?
any other help is also great.
thank you.
Stefan
simply do not want to have
sensitive informations (subject) in postfix logs.
Stefan
, Always use at least encrypt
2, When TLSA-records are found and valid, use only this to encrypt
3, When no TLSA-records are found or the ones found can not be used, fall
back to encrypt, if not possible, fail.
*Stefan*
Thank you Wietse for taking the time to explain things. I really appreciate
this. now all is clear.
Am Freitag, 25. Januar 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> thank you. seems to be that
>>
>> if address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 30m, the next attempt t
porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Jan 25 15:31:14 mx2 postfix/smtpd[10117]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > opsmail.colo.comodo.com[91.209.196.133]: 550 5.1.1
> > > address: host IP[IP] said: 550 5.1.1 > address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table (in reply to
hi,
we have
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 30m active
(root@mx2:/var/lib/postfix# postconf -n | grep verify
address_verify_negative_refresh_time = 30m)
but the verify behavior is strange.
Jan 23 21:15:21 mx2 postfix/postscreen[Jan 25 15:31:14 mx2
postfix/smtpd[10119]: NOQUEUE: reject: R
"Some sites may blacklist you when you are probing them too often (a probe
is an SMTP session that does not deliver mail), or when you are probing
them too often for a non-existent address. This is one reason why you
should use sender address verification sparingly, if at all, when your site
receiv
reject_unverified_recipient is no option as remote sites don't like
probing/verify requests. After rechecking, i had a typo in my regex.
Damn! It was working as documented. Sorry.
Am Mi., 16. Jan. 2019 um 13:17 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan
.
thank you.
Stefan
now i got it. sorry and thank you for your help.
Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Stefan Bauer
wrote:
>>
>> -o smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers=high
>> -o tls_preempt_cipherlist=yes
I just want to set allowed ciphers but can not enforce encryption
generally. this seems to be a limitation and not possible right?
Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Stefan Bauer
wrot
Nessus reports for example TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA as weak on our
submission port. So i was using the following to disable all SEED ciphers
on submission port but it has no effect:
-o smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers=high
-o tls_preempt_cipherlist=yes
-o
tls_high_cipherlist=EDH+CAMELLIA:EDH+aRSA:E
Awesome. Thank you. That did the trick.
Am Di., 15. Jan. 2019 um 13:22 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i would like that postfix always sends DSN, when requested by client and
> > mail got forwarded to next-hop
ke to only present our users our custom DSN text.
Thank you.
Stefan
Thank you. That explains it!
Am Sa., 5. Jan. 2019 um 15:03 Uhr schrieb Benny Pedersen :
> Stefan Bauer skrev den 2019-01-05 14:08:
>
> > tls_whitelist_check unix- - n - -
> > smtp
> >-o header_checks=
> >-o
=ESMTP helo=: tls_whitelist_check:
mail gets delivered, but policy service is not used/called.
What am i missing?
Am Sa., 5. Jan. 2019 um 11:05 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bauer <
cubew...@googlemail.com>:
> Understood. Would it be possible to have header_checks in main.cf that
> send mails
with special subject.
Am Freitag, 4. Januar 2019 schrieb Bill Cole <
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com>:
> On 4 Jan 2019, at 10:36, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible to have FILTER as action in policy server
>
> Yes, but FILTER behaves as documented in the
great idea, but recipient verification is not something, remote servers
like.really like.
Am Freitag, 4. Januar 2019 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
>> On Jan 4, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>>
>> this looks to me that you search for connection between
sm
Jan 2019, at 9:36, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> > is there a way to bypass policy server in smtp_recipient_restrictions,
> > in
> > case, subject contains special string?
>
> No. As documented, smtp_recipient_restrictions is evaluated for each
> RCPT command, all of which
but seems to kick in too late :/
Stefan
Understood. Thank you.
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 15:11 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:
> On 04.01.19 14:44, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >we have enforced TLS to all remote sites and have appropriate tls policy
> >server, that checks if TLS is avail before
re
ignored.
Howto work around this?
thank you.
Stefan
Hi Robert,
thanks. already saw that but i dont want to bother remote sites with a
'full verify'. still like the policy server approach. should be no big
thing for a coder - familiar with perl.
Am Samstag, 22. Dezember 2018 schrieb Robert Schetterer :
> Am 22.12.18 um 07:55 schrieb
>:
>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Stefan Bauer
wrote:
>>
>> I'm aware of such exceptions but I don't like to set them. Our policy
is safe or not at all via mail.
>
> That policy has a cost. You don't like the cost, but there it is...
>
>> I
thats a nice approach! thank you. will test.
Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Stefan Bauer
wrote:
>>
>> I'm aware of such exceptions but I don't like to set them. Our pol
.
Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2018 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Stefan Bauer
wrote:
>>
>> I use smtp_tls_security_level = encrypt
>
> The cost of that choice is that you must also have:
>
> main.cf
queue lifetime but in general thats bad for real systems
with temp issues.
how do you handle this?
Stefan
the threshold is at default, so 1.
but the dns timeout, Wietse mentioned, might be the real cause. gonna check
manuals, if this is configurable.
Thank you.
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2018 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:00:34PM +010
= drop
postscreen_dnsbl_action = enforce
Am i missing something obvious?
Stefan
uot; behavior you need for the exchange
> transport is no sasl:
> exchange unix - - n - - smtp
> -o smtp_sender_dependent_authentication=no
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 12/11/2018 1:40 PM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> thank you for your help!
>
>
org>:
> > On Dec 11, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Stefan Bauer
> wrote:
> >
> > exchange unix - - n - - smtp
> > -o smtp_sender_dependent_authentication=no
> > -o transport_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/transport_internal
>
> No the "t
org>:
> > On Dec 11, 2018, at 3:41 PM, Stefan Bauer
> wrote:
> >
> > Can you recommend appropriate manual(s)? I dont understand what you mean
> with separate transport.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/master.5.html
> http://www.postfix.org/tr
eparate transport for the relay(s) in question,
> with "smtp_sender_dependent_authentication = no" for that
> transport.
>
> > On Dec 11, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Stefan Bauer
> wrote:
> >
> > I dont see a way to have AUTH&T
So howto not use AUTH&TLS at all to 192.168.124.5:2525 ?
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 20:32 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we receive mails from $world and forward them to internal exchange
> server.
> >
Hi,
we receive mails from $world and forward them to internal exchange server.
Exchange is offering STARTTLS and AUTH
root@gate01:~# telnet 192.168.124.5 2525
Trying 192.168.124.5...
Connected to 192.168.124.5.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 ex01 Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Tue, 11 Dec
nema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > stuff/best practice that makes the process more effective.
> >
> > i'm certain that remote sites prefer one way over the other.
>
> I don't think that there is a 'standard' policy that 'works' fo
that remote sites prefer one way over the other.
Stefan
Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2018 schrieb Andrey Repin :
> Greetings, Stefan Bauer!
>
> >>> we're running a small relay-service and looking for best practice to
> >>> deliver mails to remote sites
Its no user issue. Its a real and legal use case that customers send
several mails / second to same recipient over a long period (software tests
whatever).
Am Do., 6. Dez. 2018 um 12:50 Uhr schrieb Andrey Repin :
> Greetings, Stefan Bauer!
>
> > Hi,
>
>
> > we're
Hi,
we're running a small relay-service and looking for best practice to
deliver mails to remote sites regarding concurrent delivery and so on.
Sometimes, we have customers that are sending several mails per second to
same recipients.
What is best practice to handle this?
We would like to avoid
The use case is only for mx service so there will be only incoming mail for
same domain in same smtp session.
I assume that remote mail servers will not combine mail delivery in same
smtp session when destination domains differ (even though they have same mx)
Stefan
Am Mittwoch, 28. November
privacy reasons.
Stefan
esmtp' is set by default.
Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bauer <
cubew...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> log shows:
>
> enabling PIX workarounds: disable_esmtp delay_dotcrlf for mx0.esb.de
>
> But the specific workaround 'disable_esmtp' l
en Koetter :
> * Stefan Bauer :
> > Dear Users,
> >
> > we trying to deliver mail to remote party with enforced encrcyption.
> >
> > 63FFB80805: TLS is required, but was not offered by host mx0.esb.de
> > [194.77.230.138]
> >
> > But looks like, remote dev
Dear Users,
we trying to deliver mail to remote party with enforced encrcyption.
63FFB80805: TLS is required, but was not offered by host mx0.esb.de
[194.77.230.138]
But looks like, remote device is announcing TLS and can handle it:
# telnet mx0.esb.de 25
Trying 194.77.230.138...
Connected to m
Found it. Was required to modify smtp_auth to
customer1.de user1:password
customer2.de user2:password.
Am Do., 22. Nov. 2018 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bauer <
cubew...@googlemail.com>:
> After setting
>
> smtp_sender_dependent_authentication = yes
>
> and adding a
ietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i have:
> > sender_dependent_relayhost_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relayhost_maps
> > smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/smtp_auth
> >
> > more /etc/postfix/relayhost_maps
>
i have similar case and set the first relayseever inmy pool as the one on
which changes ar eonly allowed. then i do scp + service restart to the
others with bash oneliner on demand.
for the future i plan to check in config from any host to central svn/git
repo and check frequently for changes from
Thank you!
Am Montag, 5. November 2018 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i have:
>> sender_dependent_relayhost_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/relayhost_maps
>> smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/smtp_auth
>>
>> more /etc/postfix/
mydomain:mydomainpass
How can i specify different credentials for same relayhost?
mails from my2domain.de should be relayed through 1und1 but with its own
credentials.
Thank you.
Stefan
ayhosts by
sender domain but having the option to define individual transport ways.
This is awesome to give the user/administrator a way to do a very fine
grained mail routing.
We're a "small" postfix uers (< 100.000 mails / month) but are very happy
with postfix.
Thank you.
Stefan
We simply monitor established tcp sessions to smtpd port. if client flies
away, tcp session does as well:
lsof -i tcp:25 | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l
Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 schrieb Peer Heinlein :
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> we're monitoring the amount of active smtpd processes to make sure, that
> we do
and finally a recipient verification.
i'm happy now - looks like a sane setup. Cant wait to see first spammers ;)
Stefan
Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 schrieb Andreas Schamanek :
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, at 10:57, Olivier wrote:
>
>> So, rejecting spam during smtp-dialog is ris
Thank you. So it makes sense to have all smtpd_recipient_restrictions in
place, and _only if_ the client passes all checks, clamav or spamasassin is
having data available to do a check. If the client fails a check,
clamav/spamasassin have nothing to process. Did i get it correctly? :)
Stefan
Am
or sender and recipient.
>
> Have a look to amavis-milter (+spamassassin+clamav) or even rspamd.
>
>
> Carsten
>
> On 19.10.18 07:15, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> > Thank you for your feedback. Seems like smtpd_milters are also used
> > before any other check_*_access and
Thank you for your feedback. Seems like smtpd_milters are also used before
any other check_*_access and rbl checks/header checks etc., so it's
expensive this way, to pipe every mail through virus scan.
I'm just testing if i could plug in clamav by check_policy_service.
Am Fr., 19. Okt. 2018 um 05:
ing.
What is your opinion?
thank you.
Stefan
Yes, that's it. Thank you!
Am Fr., 12. Okt. 2018 um 14:27 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> That's the probe's 421 result:
>
> > Oct 11 17:19:13 kop01 postfix/lmtp[5711]: E759E301412:
> to=,
> > relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:2003, delay=13, delays=0/0.01/13/0, dsn=4.0.0,
> > statu
d.
Am Do., 11. Okt. 2018 um 22:12 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > We just noticed, that senders got several "550 5.1.0 Address rejected"
> > bounces even though postfix logs no permanent errors.
> >
> > Oct 11 17:
127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] refused to talk to me: 421
internal error: OpenResolveAddrFolder failed)
Isn't status=undeliverable a 5xx reject?
Am Do., 11. Okt. 2018 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Dear Users,
> >
Dear Users,
we have the following in place:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
reject_unverified_recipient
unverified_recipient_reject_code = 550
unknown_address_reject_code = 550
today, we had an issue with our groupware so the following was happening:
NOQUEUE: rej
Johannes,
did you double check if your planned setup will not break other things?
Have similar needs but am not yet deep enough into mail to see possible
pitfalls.
Stefan
Am Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 schrieb Johannes Bauer :
> Hi list,
>
> I'm having an issue with my Postfix
eiver sites.
Is this a good idea to check if envelope from and from matches and if so,
howto do it in postfix?
thank you
Stefan
25, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Stefan Bauer
> wrote:
> >
> > I was more asking if it's even a good idea to add the null entry to the
> table? i would like to be a good postmaster but not want to relax policies
> for allowed sender addresses.
>
> You need to allow mail
1 - 100 of 411 matches
Mail list logo
