On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:50:22AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/24/2014 10:58 PM, Will Yardley wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:51:41AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> >>> and then have
> >>> recommended =
> >>
> >> Yes, that should work as expected.
> >
> > This seemed to work as expected in
On 7/24/2014 10:58 PM, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:51:41AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> and then have
>>> recommended =
>>
>> Yes, that should work as expected.
>
> This seemed to work as expected in my tests on 2.6.x. However, on 2.3.3,
> I get:
>
> postfix/smtpd[5673]: fat
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:51:41AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > and then have
> > recommended =
>
> Yes, that should work as expected.
This seemed to work as expected in my tests on 2.6.x. However, on 2.3.3,
I get:
postfix/smtpd[5673]: fatal: restriction class `recommended' needs a definition
Thanks so much for the helpful response - just wanted to make sure I was
heading in the right direction, and this was exactly what I needed.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:51:41AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > My thought was that maybe I should do something like this instead:
> >
> > reject_non
On 7/22/2014 7:34 PM, Will Yardley wrote:
> I'm wondering if someone can help me make sure I get the order right for
> some recipient classes. I had hoped to just phase these out in favor of
> a more unified system
>
> The *intent* was to have the recommended class behave the same as a user
> with
El 17/10/13 11:21, Dominik George escribió:
> Dominik George schrieb:
> >>> Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
> LDAP is not SQL, and inverse relations (groups of user, rather
> > than
> users of group) are very difficult to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Dominik George schrieb:
>>> Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
>>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
>>> > LDAP is not SQL, and inverse relations (groups of user, rather
>than
>>> > users of group) are very difficult to expre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
>> Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
>> > LDAP is not SQL, and inverse relations (groups of user, rather than
>> > users of group) are very difficult to express.
On second thought, Viktor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Carlos R Laguna schrieb:
>Dominik George you mind to explain yourseld a little more further.
If your LDAP users are regular system users, i.e., have the posixAccount class,
and your mail servers uses them for local authentication, then obviously,
El 17/10/13 10:25, Dominik George escribió:
> Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
> > LDAP is not SQL, and inverse relations (groups of user, rather than
> > users of group) are very difficult to express.
>
> Whereas, if the LDAP users are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
>On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
>LDAP is not SQL, and inverse relations (groups of user, rather than
>users of group) are very difficult to express.
Whereas, if the LDAP users are system us
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Carlos R Laguna wrote:
> Hello everyone, for a while now i have ben using ldap groups to create
> restriccion classes for manage the access of my users like this
>
> correose_search_base = ou=Groups,dc=jovenclub,dc=cu
> correose_query_filter = (&(|(cn=Cor
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 12:01, Noel Jones wrote:
> Kevin P. Knox wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 November 2008 11:29, Noel Jones wrote:
> >> Kevin P. Knox wrote:
> >>> If you all would be so kind, I need a "pointer" in the general
> >>> direction. I think I'm on the right track, but here's the situati
Kevin P. Knox wrote:
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 11:29, Noel Jones wrote:
Kevin P. Knox wrote:
If you all would be so kind, I need a "pointer" in the general direction.
I think I'm on the right track, but here's the situation.
I have a Postfix server that performs SMTP relay services ONLY. I
Kevin P. Knox:
> My Postfix server is running 2.2.10, so I don't "think" I can use CIDRs, but
> can possibly list the internal servers as 32 bit addresses?
CDIR table lookups were introduced with Postfix 2.1.
Wietse
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 12:01, Noel Jones wrote:
> Kevin P. Knox wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 November 2008 11:29, Noel Jones wrote:
> >> Kevin P. Knox wrote:
> >>> If you all would be so kind, I need a "pointer" in the general
> >>> direction. I think I'm on the right track, but here's the situati
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 11:29, Noel Jones wrote:
> Kevin P. Knox wrote:
> > If you all would be so kind, I need a "pointer" in the general direction.
> > I think I'm on the right track, but here's the situation.
> >
> > I have a Postfix server that performs SMTP relay services ONLY. It
> > re
Kevin P. Knox wrote:
If you all would be so kind, I need a "pointer" in the general direction. I
think I'm on the right track, but here's the situation.
I have a Postfix server that performs SMTP relay services ONLY. It relays for
about six domain names. Final delivery of these six domains
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
If a smtpd_restriction_class return NEITHER OK NOR REJECT, what
happens? Postfix continues in the "calling" set of restrictions?
as in check_mumble_access and the like, the default is to continue.
restriction classes are simply a "holder" (you can replace them by their
* Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If a smtpd_restriction_class return NEITHER OK NOR REJECT, what
> happens? Postfix continues in the "calling" set of restrictions?
Somebody built a testcase on the German lists, and yes, Postfix
continues in the "calling" set of restrictions
--
Ralf Hild
mouss wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
>>
>
> if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
> if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
>
>> $ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
>> <> OK
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
[snip]
ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
$ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
<> OK
This will never match a recipi
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
rejected.
Would the following work correctly?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
...
Noel Jones wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
>> rejected.
>>
>> Would the following work correctly?
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
>> ...
>> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
>> ...
>>
>> /etc/p
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
rejected.
Would the following work correctly?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
...
/etc/postfix/receieve_only:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] check
25 matches
Mail list logo
