On 15 Oct 2020, at 16:59, Nick wrote:
Looks like the relevant RFCs (apart from RFC822, RFC2822 and the ones
that followed) seem to be RFC3598 which was later obsoleted by RFC5233
and none of them seem to say what should happen if the delimiter is
there multiple times...
Neither 3598 nor 5233
Hi!
On 2020-10-14 3:33 p.m., Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 10/14/20 3:20 PM, Nick wrote:
I also have to tell the developers of our applications what should be
allowed...
Good luck with that one. I have encountered INNUMERABLE werb sites
which fervently insist that '+' is not a legal character in
Hi!
On 2020-10-14 9:29 p.m., Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:09:33PM +1300, Peter wrote:
On 15/10/20 8:20 am, Nick wrote:
Is it possible to have more than one "+" sign in the email address, what
does Postfix do when it sees that, does it stop at the first one and
considers e
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:09:33PM +1300, Peter wrote:
> On 15/10/20 8:20 am, Nick wrote:
> > Is it possible to have more than one "+" sign in the email address, what
> > does Postfix do when it sees that, does it stop at the first one and
> > considers everything that follow a sub-addres?
>
>
On 15/10/20 8:20 am, Nick wrote:
Is it possible to have more than one "+" sign in the email address, what
does Postfix do when it sees that, does it stop at the first one and
considers everything that follow a sub-addres?
Yes. Postfix uses the strcspn() C function to do the split which
expli
On 10/14/20 3:20 PM, Nick wrote:
> I also have to tell the developers of our applications what should be
> allowed...
Good luck with that one. I have encountered INNUMERABLE werb sites
which fervently insist that '+' is not a legal character in an email
address.
> Is it possible to have more th
" has to know how to deal with
sub-addressing ("plus-addressing"), the server which sends the email
could be unable to deal with those kind of addresses as long as it is
not involved in delivering the mail to the "mailbox" there should not be
a problem, is that right
Wietse Venema:
> Philip McGaw:
> > >> Mar 11 17:48:08 njoror postfix/pipe[32605]: 1BAF055AB6:
> > >> to=, relay=dovecot, delay=0.43,
> > >> delays=0.34/0.01/0/0.09, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
>
> Hint: >>>DOVECOT<<< says "user unknown:".
As Viktor pointed out (I am not familiar
Philip McGaw:
> >> Mar 11 17:48:08 njoror postfix/pipe[32605]: 1BAF055AB6:
> >> to=, relay=dovecot, delay=0.43,
> >> delays=0.34/0.01/0/0.09, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
Hint: >>>DOVECOT<<< says "user unknown:".
Wietse
97-4e3a-4a91-b3a0-cafe056f1...@icloud.com>
>>>>>> Mar 11 17:49:24 njoror postfix/qmgr[32599]: 33D2355AB9:
>>>>>> from=, size=1249, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>>>>>> Mar 11 17:49:25 njoror postfix/smtpd[32706]: disconnect from
>>>>>> mr11p26im-asmtp004.me.com[17.110.86.109]
>>>>>> Mar 11 17:49:26 njoror postfix/pipe[32605]: 33D2355AB9:
>>>>>> to=, relay=dovecot, delay=1.8, delays=0.63/0/0/1.2,
>>>>>> dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered via dovecot service)
>>>>>> Mar 11 17:49:26 njoror postfix/qmgr[32599]: 33D2355AB9: removed
>>>>> Looking at the lines from mail.log it looks like it thinks there should
>>>>> be a user called site+t...@skippy.org.uk, this has been puzzling me for a
>>>>> while, I was wondering if any one on here could see what was wrong, and
>>>>> what I needed to change, Looking at a few examples and online guides I
>>>>> thought I had covered all the bases.
>>> And the correct way is send to:
>> s...@skippy.org.uk is a real user. site+t...@mcgaw.eu is the test of plus
>> addressing failing.
>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> On 7 Apr 2016, at 21:44, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
>
>
> Em 07/04/2016 17:19, Philip McGaw escreveu:
>> Is there something I can add to this to help with getting an answer to what
>> I need to do to get this working?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Apr 2016, at 22:29, Philip McGaw
njoror postfix/smtpd[32706]: disconnect from
>>>> mr11p26im-asmtp004.me.com[17.110.86.109]
>>>> Mar 11 17:49:26 njoror postfix/pipe[32605]: 33D2355AB9:
>>>> to=, relay=dovecot, delay=1.8, delays=0.63/0/0/1.2,
>>>> dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered via dovecot service)
>>>> Mar 11 17:49:26 njoror postfix/qmgr[32599]: 33D2355AB9: removed
>>>
>>> Looking at the lines from mail.log it looks like it thinks there should be
>>> a user called site+t...@skippy.org.uk, this has been puzzling me for a
>>> while, I was wondering if any one on here could see what was wrong, and
>>> what I needed to change, Looking at a few examples and online guides I
>>> thought I had covered all the bases.
> And the correct way is send to:
s...@skippy.org.uk is a real user. site+t...@mcgaw.eu is the test of plus
addressing failing.
Is there something I can add to this to help with getting an answer to what I
need to do to get this working?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Apr 2016, at 22:29, Philip McGaw wrote:
>
> I am running Ubuntu Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS “Trusty” and "postconf -d | grep
> mail_version” gives me “mail_version =
I am running Ubuntu Ubuntu 14.04.4 LTS “Trusty” and "postconf -d | grep
mail_version” gives me “mail_version = 2.11.0”.
I have installed Sentora (http://sentora.org) which sets most of the
configuration up for Postfix up, I have made some changes to allow me to use
certificates for IMAP and SMT
Jeff Grossman a écrit :
> On 4/22/2009 12:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>>
> One more thing I noticed today also. All messages which have the
> "+" in
> the e-mail are sent to Dovecot's Deliver twice. So, I receive the
> message twice in the folder. All other message
On 4/22/2009 12:17 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Jeff,
One more thing I noticed today also. All messages which have the "+" in
the e-mail are sent to Dovecot's Deliver twice. So, I receive the
message twice in the folder. All other messages are only sent to
Deliver once. Any idea what I have
Jeff,
> >> One more thing I noticed today also. All messages which have the "+" in
> >> the e-mail are sent to Dovecot's Deliver twice. So, I receive the
> >> message twice in the folder. All other messages are only sent to
> >> Deliver once. Any idea what I have configured wrong for the messa
On 4/17/2009 9:08 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Jeff,
One more thing I noticed today also. All messages which have the "+" in
the e-mail are sent to Dovecot's Deliver twice. So, I receive the
message twice in the folder. All other messages are only sent to
Deliver once. Any idea what I have
Jeff,
> One more thing I noticed today also. All messages which have the "+" in
> the e-mail are sent to Dovecot's Deliver twice. So, I receive the
> message twice in the folder. All other messages are only sent to
> Deliver once. Any idea what I have configured wrong for the message to
> be s
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:11:36AM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information. The problem I have with that is all of my
> > > > > users
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 08:16:17AM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> Thanks for the help and information. I am going to see if I can figure out
> how to configure Dovecot to use mailbox_transport with system users.
Works here for Cyrus IMAP. The key question is who owns the mailboxes,
and how does
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:11:36AM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> >
> > > > Thanks for the information. The problem I have with that is all of my
> > > > users are local system users. I don't think
On 4/17/2009 7:11 AM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Jeff Grossman wrote:
On 4/16/2009 10:44 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name
in an
e-mail addres
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:11:36AM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the information. The problem I have with that is all of my
> > > users are local system users. I don't think I can use
> > > mailbox_transport with local users only virtual users. I
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:11:36AM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> > Thanks for the information. The problem I have with that is all of my
> > users are local system users. I don't think I can use
> > mailbox_transport with local users only virtual users. It appears the
> > only way
Jeff Grossman wrote:
> On 4/16/2009 10:44 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name
>>> in an
>>> e-mail address and have it automatically filtered for me. I am usin
On 4/17/2009 6:54 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
On 4/16/2009 10:44 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name
in an
e-mail address and have it automatically filtered for me. I am us
On 4/16/2009 10:44 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name in an
e-mail address and have it automatically filtered for me. I am using
"mailbox_command = /usr/local/libexec
On 16-Apr-2009, at 23:44, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Don't use mailbox_command, use mailbox_transport (assuming that in
your
case deliver can work acceptably running as a fixed pipe(8) user
rather
than as the recipient). The recipient extension in local(8)
deliveries is
converted to lower-case (
On 16-Apr-2009, at 21:24, Jeff Grossman wrote:
Is there a way for me to not have Postfix change the case?
I had a similar issue where postfix (well, or something) was NOT
changing the case on some virtual users $USER portion. I solved it
with the following in the procmailrc file:
:0D
* US
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:24:54PM -0700, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name in an
> e-mail address and have it automatically filtered for me. I am using
> "mailbox_command = /usr/local/libexec/dovecot/deliver -n -m "$EXTENSION""
> as my
I have set up "recipient_delimiter = +" so I could put a folder name in
an e-mail address and have it automatically filtered for me. I am using
"mailbox_command = /usr/local/libexec/dovecot/deliver -n -m
"$EXTENSION"" as my mailbox_command. When the mail gets passed to
deliver, the extension
Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
>
>
>>> Ok, I'm intrigued... if it is this simple, maybe I'll go ahead and do
>>> it, but...
>>>
>>> As I said in an earlier mail, I do NOT want the folder auto-created - if
>>> it doesn't exist, I want the message deliver to fall
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
> > Ok, I'm intrigued... if it is this simple, maybe I'll go ahead and do
> > it, but...
> >
> > As I said in an earlier mail, I do NOT want the folder auto-created - if
> > it doesn't exist, I want the message deliver to fall back to the Inbox...
> >
>
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 3/7/2009 1:45 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on
>>> the fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing
>>> up for different sites/lists/things, so I can use the same address,
>>> but be able to
Charles Marcus a écrit :
> On 3/7/2009 1:45 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>>> Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on
>>> the fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing
>>> up for different sites/lists/things, so I can use the same address,
>>> but be able to d
On 7-Mar-2009, at 12:13, Charles Marcus wrote:
As I said in an earlier mail, I do NOT want the folder auto-created
- if
it doesn't exist, I want the message deliver to fall back to the
Inbox...
Is there a way to tweak the above to accomplish this?
Sure, you can do most anything in procmai
On 3/7/2009 1:45 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>> Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on
>> the fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing
>> up for different sites/lists/things, so I can use the same address,
>> but be able to distinguish mail that comes to m
Noel Jones a écrit :
> Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 3/7/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
>>> if all extensions are acceptable (not very recommended),
>>
>> Ok, this caught my attention...
>>
>> Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on the
>> fly... thje purpose fo
On 7-Mar-2009, at 08:39, Noel Jones wrote:
Postfix does not allow $1 etc. substitution in virtual_mailbox_maps.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_maps
It is pretty easy to set up a procmail transport to be used by postfix:
procmail unix - n n - -
On 7-Mar-2009, at 08:11, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/7/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
if all extensions are acceptable (not very recommended),
Ok, this caught my attention...
Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on
the
fly... thje purpose for using the
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:44:54AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 3/7/2009, Noel Jones (njo...@megan.vbhcs.org) wrote:
> > Some third-party IMAP servers may support "deliver to any extension
> > subfolder", I haven't looked.
>
> They do... both cyrus and dovecot, and I think courier maildrop d
On 3/7/2009, Noel Jones (njo...@megan.vbhcs.org) wrote:
> Some third-party IMAP servers may support "deliver to any extension
> subfolder", I haven't looked.
They do... both cyrus and dovecot, and I think courier maildrop does as
well...
Since I'm going to be converting to dovecot soon, I'll be u
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/7/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
if all extensions are acceptable (not very recommended),
Ok, this caught my attention...
Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on the
fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signi
On 3/7/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
> if all extensions are acceptable (not very recommended),
Ok, this caught my attention...
Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on the
fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing up for
different site
Charles Marcus a écrit :
> On 3/6/2009 3:43 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 6-Mar-2009, at 12:27, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> Hmmm... I'm now wondering if ${extension} can somehow be used with the
>>> virtual_mailbox_maps query to accomplish what I want?
>
>> Yes, but you need procmail (or, I assume, Maild
Charles Marcus wrote, at 03/06/2009 02:27 PM:
> I want to be able to use plussed addresses in such a way that if such a
> message comes in and a subfolder matches the extension, the message will
> be delivered to that subfolder, and if there is no matching subfolder,
> it is just delivered to the
On 3/6/2009 3:43 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 6-Mar-2009, at 12:27, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> Hmmm... I'm now wondering if ${extension} can somehow be used with the
>> virtual_mailbox_maps query to accomplish what I want?
> Yes, but you need procmail (or, I assume, Maildrop)
Many thanks for the detail.
On 6-Mar-2009, at 12:27, Charles Marcus wrote:
Hmmm... I'm now wondering if ${extension} can somehow be used with the
virtual_mailbox_maps query to accomplish what I want?
Yes, but you need procmail (or, I assume, Maildrop)
in a procmail file you would have:
# based on the procmail pipe in m
Charles Marcus:
> Obviously (also judging from the replies so far), the postfix DA's don't
> support adding flags to accomplish this, like you can with the dovecot
> LDA master.cf entry. So, an obvious follow-up would be, is there a
> reason postfix's DAs don't support this? I'm not complaining, ju
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:27:56PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> It would be nice if the postfix local and/or virtual DA master.cf
> entries allowed the addition of these flags to be able to do this...
>
> I guess in this situation I'll have to wait until I have converted to
> dovecot so I can u
>> I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
>> trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
>> email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
>>
>> I've got the recipient deli
On 27-Feb-2009, at 15:48, Charles Marcus wrote:
I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
It is not postfix's j
Charles Marcus a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
> trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
> email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
>
> I'
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 05:48:35PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
> trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
> email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folde
Charles Marcus wrote:
Hello,
I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
I've got the recipient delimiter enabled i
Hello,
I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
I've got the recipient delimiter enabled in main.cf (output of
57 matches
Mail list logo
