about the additional points
regarding !negation and files including files etc.
Thanks again!
James.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 01:22, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:00:26AM +, JL (Postfix Readers A/c) wrote:
>
> > Can someone point me at the right place in
Hi,
I can't find it in the docs or from a search of this mailing-list...
When a main.cf entry specifies a filename, I know the contents are
inserted in place. But the exact format of said file is unclear.
I don't think it is literally "included" in-line, because a file that
contains a list of do
On 2016-12-27 09:45, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/26/2016 10:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
so long as the loop continues in the presence of a zero return
code from mysql_next_result() and mysql_store_result is called for
each one we will stay in sync. With the break above we will be ok
On 2016-11-23 21:57, John Fawcett wrote:
On 11/22/2016 01:35 AM, Joel Linn wrote:
Hey Guys,
this issue has decayed a bit but I now finally found the time (and the
nerves) to integrate the fix in my system.
I'm running Ubuntu 16.04 and trying not change to many things and be
able to have clean c
Quoting John Fawcett :
I can propose a code submission to add stored procedure support (based
on the proof of concept code from 2008), but the biggest part will be
doing the testing and non regression testing not the actual coding.
I believe the best approach to adding stored procedure support
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
j...@conductive.de:
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Joel Linn:
>> > Why is it chosen to "not support stored procedures" instead of
adding two
>> > lines of code?
>>
>> The original mysql client may well have been written at a time that
>> st
Quoting wie...@porcupine.org:
Wietse Venema:
Joel Linn:
> Why is it chosen to "not support stored procedures" instead of adding two
> lines of code?
The original mysql client may well have been written at a time that
stored procedures did not exist, or no API documentation existed
for how to
ble to do it
by specifying "example.com none" in tls_policy. I will test using
smtp_tls_policy_maps, as well as testing using
smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps
Thank you again, and again my apologies for grabbing the wrong snippet of
log file.
JL Hill
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:33 P
tested without the dot, sending to john@example.com my log shows
"Host offered STARTTLS: [smtp2.example.com]"
I will test carefully again using just "example.com none" -- I guess I
could have made a typo or other error; I thought not.
Thank you again,
JL Hill
On Fri, Mar
6 IN MX 30 smtp3.example.com.
I had assumed that having
.example.com none
in my tls_policy would keep postfix from negotiating TLS with these servers.
I will try with smtp_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps.
Thank you again,
JL Hill
p.s. in case it is of value, my tls config:
smtp_tls_policy_m
I have a very similar issue, although my goal is not to negotiate TLS with
specific domains. I have:
main.cf
smtp_tls_security_level = may
smtp_tls_policy_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/tls_policy
/etc/postfix/tls_policy
example.com none
.example.com none
>From the documentation I
I am trying to setup some simple username-based restrictions on what
local users can send on a local Solaris 10 server. In this case, I want
to allow emails by all other users, but reject any attempt for user
"local_usr" to send any email from this server. But so far, I can't
make the below config
12 matches
Mail list logo
