Cool! thank-you.
Regards,
--
Étienne Miret
https://etienne.miret.io/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.
I have added text that ``Other Postfix interfaces may still accept an
"unknown" recipient.'' in LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README.html and postconf.proto.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pos
Hello!
The documentation patch seems to suggest that there are potential
futures in which the parameter also restricts non-SMTP message ingres,
or even delivery after alias expansion for addresses not listed in the
table.
Well, based on previous messages on this thread, I thought this was
ind
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 04:14:33PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> However, neither eventuality is at all likely. My take is that it would
> not be an unwelcome breaking change to apply the table in any context
> other than SMTP ingres.
s/would not be/would be/
--
Vikto
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Étienne Miret via Postfix-users wrote:
> Anyway, I promised a documentation patch that would make this more
> explicit, here it is! Sorry it took me a little long to do it, as I have
> been busy on other issues.
The documentation patch seems to suggest
Hello,
There is nothing that prevents local_recipient_maps from being used elsewhere.
The need to do so just hasn't come up.
To be fair, I don’t have any use for this either. It’s just I had a
misconfiguration on my side, a user wouldn’t get their mails (well,
myself actually, the postmaste
Etienne Miret via Postfix-users:
> > If there is a DISCREPANCY between local_recipient_maps and your
> > local delivery agent, then you MUST UPDATE your local_recipient_maps
> > accordingly.
>
> I wasn't complaining about that discrepancy. I was complaining that the
> local_recipient_maps is only
Hello all,
[…] the queue manager just hands off the message to the relevant transport.
Whether the transport also uses the same table to decide whether or
where to deliver mail is up to the transport.
Obviously. The question is about who checks the local_recipient_maps.
Looking at the at the
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> ?tienne Miret via Postfix-users:
> > I found this discrepancy surprising and am suggesting it is removed. In
> > case others argue it is useful or that removing it will break some
> > configurations, I am asking it is documented.
>
> The default local_recipient
?tienne Miret via Postfix-users:
> I found this discrepancy surprising and am suggesting it is removed. In
> case others argue it is useful or that removing it will break some
> configurations, I am asking it is documented.
The default local_recipient_maps setting uses the UNIX password
database
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 01:51:24AM +0200, Étienne Miret via Postfix-users wrote:
> I found this discrepancy surprising and am suggesting it is removed. In
> case others argue it is useful or that removing it will break some
> configurations, I am asking it is documented.
The discrepancy is inte
Hello,
Did you mean command-line submission with /usr/sbin/sendmail?
Yes, as well as internal submission by a Postfix process when using
aliasing. Sorry, I thought I was explicit (albeit the typo in "command").
This will receive and then bounce the message.
Nope. My tests (using the Debi
?tienne Miret via Postfix-users:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hello,
>
> After troubleshooting an issue on my Postfix server, I found out that
> the local_recipient_maps parameter is ignored for locally submitted
> emails. That is, a recipient no
13 matches
Mail list logo
