After some interesting experiences using a less than stellar communications
(I didn't appreciate just how lucky I am to live in a big city until this
trip) I have managed to get things setup and working.
Because of the poor communications I decided to use the families server as
a guinea pig.
On 2/2/2016 5:53 PM, John A @ KLaM wrote:
> If I might ask another peripheraly related and most probably very
> dumb question - is it possible to the have the inverse of
> "permit_authenticated_users"?
> The rules for this outfit are - imap for picking up you mail,
> submission (port 587) for sendi
Thanks for explaination.
Smtpd_content_filter=[127.0.0.1]:10026
Typo, or rather my cell phone auto completing things for me and me not
catching it.
If I might ask another peripheraly related and most probably very dumb
question - is it possible to the have the inverse of
"permit_authentic
On 2/1/2016 12:30 AM, John A @ KLaM wrote:
>
> My question is what is the /best/ way of getting postfix to forward
> mail to the signing policy bank.
> In one example the submission section of master.cf had the following
> lines added
> smtpd_proxy_filter=[127.0.0.1]:10026
> milter_macro_deamon_na
1. This maybe off topic.
2. I am currently unable to get at the output of postconf -n etc.
In the past we have had occasional problems with DKIM signing not working.
It would be one or two emails and we would not find out about the problem
immediately. Often the sender would put it down a tran
