On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:15:05PM +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> On 2019-09-23 22:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > As documented in transport(5), when a transport table entry does not
> > specify an explicit nexthop, it uses the extant (default) nexthop
> > for the recipient. In your case that's sp
On 2019-09-23 22:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
As documented in transport(5), when a transport table entry does not
specify an explicit nexthop, it uses the extant (default) nexthop
for the recipient. In your case that's specified via "relayhost".
Of course! Thank you very much!
--
Jesper Dybda
> On Sep 23, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> I have tried the following:
>
>> relayhost = [smarthost.arrowmail.co.uk]:587
>> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps =
>> cdb:/etc/postfix/sender_default_transport
>>
>> # cat /etc/postfix/sender_default_transport
>> jd-dir...@dybdal.d
On 22/06/17 22:47, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/22/2017 10:32 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Brice Figureau:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a fairly (at least to me) complex mail system based on postfix
>>> 2.11.2 where our users entering e-mails are forwarded to amavis to be
>>> DKIM signed then forwarded back t
On 22/06/17 17:32, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brice Figureau:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a fairly (at least to me) complex mail system based on postfix
>> 2.11.2 where our users entering e-mails are forwarded to amavis to be
>> DKIM signed then forwarded back to postfix for the final delivery.
>>
>> Lately, I
On 6/22/2017 10:32 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brice Figureau:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a fairly (at least to me) complex mail system based on postfix
>> 2.11.2 where our users entering e-mails are forwarded to amavis to be
>> DKIM signed then forwarded back to postfix for the final delivery.
>>
>> Latel
Brice Figureau:
> Hi,
>
> I have a fairly (at least to me) complex mail system based on postfix
> 2.11.2 where our users entering e-mails are forwarded to amavis to be
> DKIM signed then forwarded back to postfix for the final delivery.
>
> Lately, I wanted to have mails sent from `registrat...@a
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I have opted to use the recipient as the "sender context" for sender
> address resolving, if the recipient is available. This means that
> the sender will "exist" when the recipient is allowed to send mail
> to it.
That's clever, and seems t
Russell Yanofsky:
> Thanks for taking a look at the patch. I attached an updated version
> that uses vstring primitives and adds the missing free.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > One complication is that the smtpd_resolve_addr cache is not only
> > used for validatin
Thanks for taking a look at the patch. I attached an updated version
that uses vstring primitives and adds the missing free.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> One complication is that the smtpd_resolve_addr cache is not only
> used for validating recipients, but also for val
Russell Yanofsky:
> The attached patch fixes the problem for me. It changes the relevant
> smtpd_resolve_addr() call in smtpd_check.c to use the message sender.
One complication is that the smtpd_resolve_addr cache is not only
used for validating recipients, but also for validating senders.
See ch
The attached patch fixes the problem for me. It changes the relevant
smtpd_resolve_addr() call in smtpd_check.c to use the message sender.
diff --git a/src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c b/src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c
index 74e42d7..2d8c6b7 100644
--- a/src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c
+++ b/src/smtpd/smtpd_check.c
@@ -510
Could anyone confirm whether this seems like a real bug before I spend
time trying to work around or fix it? To summarize, my configuration
is:
default_transport = error:External delivery disabled
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = inline:{
@yanofsky.org=smtp:[smtp-relay.gmail.com]:587
To be more specific: the check_recipient_rcpt_maps() function is
called multiple places, but the call that fails in this case is in the
one at the bottom of smtpd_check_rcpt().
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Russell Yanofsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there is a bug in handling of sender_dependen
Thanks.
On 22/07/15 18:49, Wietse Venema wrote:
Edgaras Luko?evi?ius:
All this is done to put users into our own "classes" (eg. spammers vs.
non-spammers). Because there are clean and dirty IP pools and if we see
that user *may be* abusing email (or any other) system we want to put
them to "dir
On 22/07/15 18:05, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:55:04PM +0300, Edgaras Luko?evi?ius wrote:
All this is done to put users into our own "classes" (eg. spammers vs.
non-spammers).
If your autheneticated submission user is spamming, suspend their
ability to send outbound ema
Edgaras Luko?evi?ius:
> All this is done to put users into our own "classes" (eg. spammers vs.
> non-spammers). Because there are clean and dirty IP pools and if we see
> that user *may be* abusing email (or any other) system we want to put
> them to "dirty" pool for some time. While this works
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:55:04PM +0300, Edgaras Luko?evi?ius wrote:
> All this is done to put users into our own "classes" (eg. spammers vs.
> non-spammers).
If your autheneticated submission user is spamming, suspend their
ability to send outbound email.
> Because there are clean and dirty IP
All this is done to put users into our own "classes" (eg. spammers vs.
non-spammers). Because there are clean and dirty IP pools and if we see
that user *may be* abusing email (or any other) system we want to put
them to "dirty" pool for some time. While this works with ordinary
senders, it doe
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:01:48PM +0300, Edgaras Luko?evi?ius wrote:
> Now I have some aliases in SQL `alias` table.
Are these virtual(5) aliases or local aliases(5)?
> By default when postfix
> unpacks this alias and sees external recipient it will send email through
> first primary IP address
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:56:49PM +0100, Robert Dahlem wrote:
> >> /etc/postfix/sender_dependent_transport:
> >>
> >> @example.tld smtp_example:
> >
> > Set the relayhost above (smtp_example:[example_server1])
>
> That works now, thank you!
>
Hi Viktor,
On 13.02.2015 16:49, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> I got this domain example.tld for which I need to relay all mail FROM
>> this domain through a specific mail server. For this I tried to deploy
>> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps.
>
> The "relayhost" parameter is used by trivial-r
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:39:20PM +0100, Robert Dahlem wrote:
> I got this domain example.tld for which I need to relay all mail FROM
> this domain through a specific mail server. For this I tried to deploy
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps.
The "relayhost" parameter is used by trivial-r
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:39:04PM -0700, Robert Minsk wrote:
> In my main.cf I have
>
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = tcp:localhost:6002
>
> and in my master.cf I have:
> 10025 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o syslog_name=postfix/10025
> -o content_filter=scan:[127.0.0.1]:11125
> -o rece
Thanks Viktor, the examples helped considerably. I now have it working
as intended :)
Hopefully this thread will help others in the future that may have
issues too.
On 7/31/2012 12:21 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:56:05PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
The source IP
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:56:05PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
> The source IP is defined based on the sender's domain. This is what
> I need to achieve: "Recently there have been requests for sending
> mail with source IP addresses that depend on the envelope sender."
> (http://www.mail-archive.c
Some clarification, I'm not asking you (or anyone) to write my configs
for me, but to just point me in some sort of direction that has some
working examples I could pick up off of the postfix documentation
has some nice examples and tutorials for all sort of things, just
nothing for this pa
> What does "go through" mean?
The source IP is defined based on the sender's domain. This is what I
need to achieve: "Recently there have been requests for sending mail
with source IP addresses that depend on the envelope sender."
(http://www.mail-archive.com/postfix-users@postfix.org/msg184
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33:40PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
> "I have a simple postfix 2.9.3 server with 2 IP addresses. I want
> all mail sent from a sender address of *@example1 to go through
> 1.1.1.1, and all mail sent from a sender address of *@example2.com
> to go through 1.1.1.2."
What
Thank you for the delightful insight. I thought I was pretty clear in
what I was attempting to do in my first email:
"I have a simple postfix 2.9.3 server with 2 IP addresses. I want all
mail sent from a sender address of *@example1 to go through 1.1.1.1, and
all mail sent from a sender addres
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:57:10PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
> Thanks Viktor. I feel like I am closer, just not quite there yet. I
> am now getting the following error:
> mail for 1.1.1.1 loops back to myself
>
> main.cf:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps =
> hash:/etc/postfix/sen
Thanks Viktor. I feel like I am closer, just not quite there yet. I am
now getting the following error:
mail for 1.1.1.1 loops back to myself
main.cf:
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps =
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
master.cf:
1.1.1.1:smtp inetn
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:30:51AM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
> I have been following (or attempting to follow) these two sites I
> found that showed how to set this up. They both show domain then
> transport:
I don't see this at either site. All I found was "transport:",
with custom transport n
Hi Viktor,
I have been following (or attempting to follow) these two sites I found
that showed how to set this up. They both show domain then transport:
http://www.ericmichaelstone.com/?p=5359
http://www.zoobey.com/index.php/resources/all-articles-list/210-postfix-outbound-mail-router-by-domai
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 08:26:24PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
[ No HTML posts, please! ]
> /@domain2\.com$/ 1.1.1.2:smtp:
Why do you believe this is the correct syntax? The transport(5)
documentation specifies:
transport:nexthop
not
nexthop:transport
--
Viktor.
On 05/07/2012 08:15 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:04:21PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
We have some fairly involved routing requirements, and have been
using a script that creates a transport table from a number of
source files. It's been working well for some years, but now
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:04:21PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > We have some fairly involved routing requirements, and have been
> > using a script that creates a transport table from a number of
> > source files. It's been working well for some years, but now we have
> > a need for sender-depende
On 5/7/2012 8:58 PM, Joe wrote:
> Hello list -
>
> We have some fairly involved routing requirements, and have been
> using a script that creates a transport table from a number of
> source files. It's been working well for some years, but now we have
> a need for sender-dependent transport rules.
> These are not "keywords", they are transport names. Transports are
> defined in master.cf.
Ahh, so the names are conventional, configurable. Flexible
configurability is a theme with Postfix.
> The "smtp" transport is for other people's domains, the "relay"
> transport is for your domains that a
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> > > Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> > > first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> > > sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> > > candidates
> > Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> > first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> > sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> > candidates for custom routing from this Sender.
> >
> > Then in the secondary Postfi
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:51:53PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> candidates for custom rout
> >>> What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
> >>> anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
> >>> to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
> >>> condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this?
> >>> Or do I need to s
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:22:31PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> > This requires a second internal delivery hop.
> >
> > The first to separate out the recipients or senders that are candidates
> > for bypassing Postini into a separate queue, and the second to route
> > appropriate mail from that
Le 29/11/2010 19:22, Stirling, Scott a écrit :
What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this
> > What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
> > anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
> > to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
> > condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this?
> > Or do I need to script a c
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:40:13AM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if anyone
> has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability to combine the
> sender_dependent configuration with a recipient condition. Is there a
> straightforw
47 matches
Mail list logo
