On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:08:33PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >I usually solve this differently. I avoid self-referential
> >expansions!
> >
> >virtual:
> > use...@example.com
> > use...@mailstore-name.example.com,
> > use...@mailstore-name.example.c
--On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:34 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
I usually solve this differently. I avoid self-referential
expansions!
virtual:
use...@example.com
use...@mailstore-name.example.com,
use...@mailstore-name.example.com,
H
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:11:15PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >Duplicates arise when multiple lists have common recipients, and
> >whether these lead to multiple deliveries or not depends mostly on
> >enable_original_recipient.
>
> That's not really what we're seeing. What we are seeing
--On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:03 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
>> Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
>> postco
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> wrote:
>
> >>Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
> >>postconf, or -o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings requires
> >>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:00:08AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
> >transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
> >content multiple times.
>
> Hi Viktor,
>
> Thanks for the reply! I've been on vacat
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:08 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Either default_destination_recipient_limit has to be bumped up via
postconf, or -o receive_override_options=no_address_mappings requires
setting to resolve this so far.
Hm, so according to our clients setting default_des
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 3:01 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 2:56 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transp
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 2:56 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
content multi
--On Monday, November 30, 2015 7:00 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I've always (since ~2001) used large recipient limits with filter
transports, this also improves efficiency, no need to scan the same
content multiple times.
Hi Viktor,
Thanks for the reply! I've been on vacation so ca
--On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:42 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> Since this was implemented, we've had an issue where when emails with
> a large number of recipients are processed, the result is that the
> recipients get duplicates of the email. We found one workaround to
> this was
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:29:18PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I have the following configuration for passing email to OpenDKIM for
> > processing:
> >
> > [127.0.0.1]:10030 inet n - n - - smtpd
> > -o local_recipient_maps=
> > -o virtual_mailbox_maps=
> > -o virtual_alias_maps=
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> I have the following configuration for passing email to OpenDKIM for
> processing:
>
> [127.0.0.1]:10030 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o local_recipient_maps=
> -o virtual_mailbox_maps=
> -o virtual_alias_maps=
> -o relay_recipient_maps=
> -o smtpd_restriction
I have the following configuration for passing email to OpenDKIM for
processing:
[127.0.0.1]:10030 inet n - n - - smtpd
-o local_recipient_maps=
-o virtual_mailbox_maps=
-o virtual_alias_maps=
-o relay_recipient_maps=
-o smtpd_restriction_classes=
-o smtpd_delay_reject=no
-o
14 matches
Mail list logo