Dear Viktor, dear Wietse,
thanks again for your vigilant eyes.
On 2024-01-05 19:31:35 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:46:01PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
RFC 2033 says: "The LMTP protocol is identical to the SMTP protocol [SMTP]
[
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> thanks for your careful review.
>
> On 2024-01-05 16:11:56 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> smtp(8):
> >>
> >> Th
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:46:01PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > Unfortunately this says that RFC 5321 applies to LMTP deliveries,
>
> RFC 2033 says: "The LMTP protocol is identical to the SMTP protocol [SMTP]
> [HOST-REQ] with its service extensions [ESMTP], except as modi
Dear Wietse,
thanks for your careful review.
On 2024-01-05 16:11:56 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
smtp(8):
The Postfix SMTP+LMTP client supports multiple destinations sep
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Hi Viktor,
>
> On 2024-01-02 18:13:22 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> > That said, indeed the documentation is not explicit on this point, one
> > has to read "between the lines". If your technical writing skills are
> > adequate, perhaps you
Hi Viktor,
On 2024-01-02 18:13:22 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
That said, indeed the documentation is not explicit on this point, one
has to read "between the lines". If your technical writing skills are
adequate, perhaps you could suggest some concise and clear text
explaini
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:12:28AM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> To avoid a potential misunderstanding: I do not see any reason to cast doubt
> on the RFC compliance of Postfix. I think the issue discussed in this thread
> rather goes beyond what is specified in RFCs. It basic
Hi Viktor,
On 2023-12-29 19:59:42 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
RFCs 5321, 2821 and 821 have been around long enough to expect
compliance with core elements of the SMTP specification from any
mainstream MTA, and particularly Postfix, which appears to be the most
widely deployed
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 07:45:45PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > And then shows some examples that deminstarte that the using
> > MX records is mutually exclusive with using address (A or ) records.
>
> I think what bears the potential for confusion is what you mean by
Hi Wietse,
On 2023-12-29 18:36:59 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
There is no such thing as falling back to A or records after
trying MX records. The two are mutually excl
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
> >> Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in whi
Dear Wietse,
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in which
destinations are tried. Let us again consider the
gt; indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
> >> multiple DNS entries. Let us assume the following setting:
> >
> > for each destination d in relayhost:
> >
> > try to deliver the remaining recipients to destination d
>
On 2023-12-12 15:51:58 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
Dear Postfix experts,
checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
multiple DNS entries. Let us
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Postfix experts,
>
> checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
> indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
> multiple DNS entries. Let us assume the following setting:
for each d
Dear Postfix experts,
checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
multiple DNS entries. Let us assume the following setting:
relayhost = mail1.example.com, mail2.example.com
In addition let us
On 10/21/20 11:16 AM, Fred Morris wrote:
> If DNSSEC isn't required for the domain(s) in question (or at least
> postfix in this specific case) you might look at RPZ as a way of
> rewriting just a single record in the zone: https://www.dnsrpz.info/
Demi M. Obenour:
> You can also use a local valid
On 10/21/20 11:16 AM, Fred Morris wrote:
> If DNSSEC isn't required for the domain(s) in question (or at least postfix
> in this specific case) you might look at RPZ as a way of rewriting just a
> single record in the zone: https://www.dnsrpz.info/
You can also use a local validating recursive r
If DNSSEC isn't required for the domain(s) in question (or at least
postfix in this specific case) you might look at RPZ as a way of rewriting
just a single record in the zone: https://www.dnsrpz.info/
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, IL Ka wrote:
I think you can install the DNS server locally (on the sa
Zsombor B:
> Hi Wietse,
>
>
> > Postfix 3.5 supports multiple relayhosts:
>
> Currently we are on 3.2
>
> > If these folks want to receive mail in six places, why can't they
> > set up DNS records like everyone else does?
>
> I'm already over this discussion, that's why I have asked the questi
Hi Wietse,
Postfix 3.5 supports multiple relayhosts:
Currently we are on 3.2
If these folks want to receive mail in six places, why can't they
set up DNS records like everyone else does?
I'm already over this discussion, that's why I have asked the question. :(
Big company, rigid people,
Zsombor B:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> Customer asked us to relay their mails to a specific smtp server.
>
> Actually they provided 6 possible destination servers.
>
>
> When add them to sender_dependent_relayhost_maps postmap complains
> that there are duplicate entries:
>
> @foo.bar [mail1.whateve
I think you can install the DNS server locally (on the same machine where
postfix runs) and configure postfix to use it
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:42 PM Zsombor B wrote:
>
> I can' force the customer changing their DNS.
>
> Any postfix solution?
>
> BTW it looks like postfix delivers mails to al
I can' force the customer changing their DNS.
Any postfix solution?
BTW it looks like postfix delivers mails to all the relay servers so
the postmap warning is a bit misleading as if it won't work.
But this brings up another question: if any of the relay servers can't
accept mail will pos
> Hi All,
>
>
> Customer asked us to relay their mails to a specific smtp server.
>
> Actually they provided 6 possible destination servers.
>
>
> When add them to sender_dependent_relayhost_maps postmap complains that there
> are duplicate entries:
>
> @foo.bar [mail1.whatever]:123
> @foo
Hi All,
Customer asked us to relay their mails to a specific smtp server.
Actually they provided 6 possible destination servers.
When add them to sender_dependent_relayhost_maps postmap complains
that there are duplicate entries:
@foo.bar [mail1.whatever]:123
@foo.bar [mail2.whatever]:12
Thanks Wietse, looks very interesting. I'll dig into those.
Den onsdag den 7. november 2018 13.23.27 CET skrev Wietse Venema
:
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * K F :
> > Hi all
> > I'm contemplating on how I best keep all our relay servers synchronized in
> > their config.They are set up as ro
i have similar case and set the first relayseever inmy pool as the one on
which changes ar eonly allowed. then i do scp + service restart to the
others with bash oneliner on demand.
for the future i plan to check in config from any host to central svn/git
repo and check frequently for changes from
* K F :
> Not sure I understand the suggestions fully.The configuration management
> systems I've found for postfix, are all concentrated on a single postfix
> system?Containers? Like in Docker? Why? I have the servers set up already?Not
> sure what the Makefile should do in the configuration c
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * K F :
> > Hi all
> > I'm contemplating on how I best keep all our relay servers synchronized in
> > their config.They are set up as round robin servers in the DNS, so they
> > distribute the load pretty ok.My first idea was to set up some rsync to
> > copy the relevant d
Not sure I understand the suggestions fully.The configuration management
systems I've found for postfix, are all concentrated on a single postfix
system?Containers? Like in Docker? Why? I have the servers set up already?Not
sure what the Makefile should do in the configuration context.
It's pro
* K F :
> Hi all
> I'm contemplating on how I best keep all our relay servers synchronized in
> their config.They are set up as round robin servers in the DNS, so they
> distribute the load pretty ok.My first idea was to set up some rsync to copy
> the relevant directories like /etc/postfix and
Hi all
I'm contemplating on how I best keep all our relay servers synchronized in
their config.They are set up as round robin servers in the DNS, so they
distribute the load pretty ok.My first idea was to set up some rsync to copy
the relevant directories like /etc/postfix and /etc/opendkim.Then
On 6/6/2016 7:28 AM, Zalezny Niezalezny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just would like to know if its possible to configure muliple IP`s
> of SMTP servers in this configuration file:
>
> check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/check_sender_regexp
>
>
>
> At the moment we are forwarding message with foll
Hi,
I just would like to know if its possible to configure muliple IP`s of SMTP
servers in this configuration file:
check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/check_sender_regexp
At the moment we are forwarding message with following sender E-mail
address to one of our MS Exchange servers.
/zel
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:05:51 +0200
Erwan David wrote:
> Use a local DNS with 2 MX entries
> myrelay.office MX 10 IP1
> myrelay.office MX 20 IP2
>
MX record shoud point to hostname with A record.. not IP.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 01:05:51PM CEST, Erwan David said:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:37:33PM CEST, Joe Acquisto-j4
> said:
> > New to list, been using postfix for a little while.
> >
> > I would like to point a postfix install to two outbound relay's (all
> > outbound mail to go thru them)
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:37:33PM CEST, Joe Acquisto-j4
said:
> New to list, been using postfix for a little while.
>
> I would like to point a postfix install to two outbound relay's (all outbound
> mail to go thru them) so that, should one be unavailable, it will attempt to
> send via the o
Joe Acquisto-j4:
> New to list, been using postfix for a little while.
>
> I would like to point a postfix install to two outbound relay's
> (all outbound mail to go thru them) so that, should one be
> unavailable, it will attempt to send via the other. Not "round
> robin" but "fail over".
See:
New to list, been using postfix for a little while.
I would like to point a postfix install to two outbound relay's (all outbound
mail to go thru them) so that, should one be unavailable, it will attempt to
send via the other. Not "round robin" but "fail over".
This is probably simple, but ha
> http://www.postfix.org/SOHO_README.html#client_sasl_sender
Wietse thanks :-)
Pol
Pol Hallen:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Hi all :-) I'm not sure which parameters is correct, I've:
>
> pc1 - user1
> pc2 - user2
> pc3 - user3
>
> I need set postifx with multiple relay:
>
> if user1 send an email to domain1, postfi
Hi all :-) I'm not sure which parameters is correct, I've:
pc1 - user1
pc2 - user2
pc3 - user3
I need set postifx with multiple relay:
if user1 send an email to domain1, postfix should be send using
mail.server1.org with sasl.
if user2 send an email to domain2, postfix should be
Great,
Thank you so much !
-Message d'origine-
De : owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
De la part de Viktor Dukhovni
Envoyé : mercredi 12 octobre 2011 16:47
À : postfix-users@postfix.org
Objet : Re: multiple relay domain, relay_recipient
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:20:49PM +, Vianney Foucault wrote:
> I did not find yet the way to achieve ldap check for differents domains.
>
> relay_domain = dom1.com, dom2.net
> relay_recipient_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf
>
> ldap-aliases.cf
>
> domain = dom1.com
> server_host =
Hello,
I did not find yet the way to achieve ldap check for differents domains.
Eg :
relay_domain = dom1.com, dom2.net
relay_recipient_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf
ð Ldap-aliases.cf
domain = dom1.com
server_host = ldap.dom1.com
version = 3
search_base = dc=dom1, dc=dom
bind = n
Andrew Long wrote:
I apologize if this is a dupe post, but my client was not showing my
previous post properly...
Perhaps I left out a detail. There is actually a third mx in dns,
which is THIS postfix machine. Although
[gmail eats your own posts from the list as a duplicate, so
you won't se
I apologize if this is a dupe post, but my client was not showing my
previous post properly...
Perhaps I left out a detail. There is actually a third mx in dns,
which is THIS postfix machine. Although
$ host -t mx domain.com
domain.com mail is handled by 20 domain.com.bak-mx.smtpblah.com.
domain.
> It would look like Ralf already showed you. But if you are sending to
> example.org which has the two MX RRs, then there is no need to configure
> transport maps. If you do use transport maps, the lack of brackets around
> the nexthop means Postfix will use MX lookups when deciding which nexthop
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Andrew Long wrote:
$ host -t mx charite.de
charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
and then use:
domain.de charite.de
I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
dns f
* Andrew Long :
> > $ host -t mx charite.de
> > charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
> > charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
> >
> > and then use:
> >
> > domain.de charite.de
>
> I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
> dns for t
> $ host -t mx charite.de
> charite.de mail is handled by 120 mail.charite.de.
> charite.de mail is handled by 110 mail-ausfall.charite.de.
>
> and then use:
>
> domain.de charite.de
I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on this. They're are two mx's in the
dns for the domain, a la
$ host -t mx domain
* Andrew Long :
> I would like to define two relay hosts for one domain in our transport
> map, the primary and backup MTX so postfix will try the backup if the
> primary does not respond. Is this possible and what would be my
> syntax?
Use dns
like:
$ host -t mx charite.de
charite.de mail is han
I would like to define two relay hosts for one domain in our transport
map, the primary and backup MTX so postfix will try the backup if the
primary does not respond. Is this possible and what would be my
syntax?
domain.com smtp:[pri-mx.domain.com] smtp:[bak-mx.domain.com]
or
domain.com
Patrick Saweikis wrote:
The one problem I ran into is that we normally use the format
smtp:[10.1.1.7], when I kept patsaw.local in brackets it tried to
deliver to the A record, I had to take it out of brackets for postfix to
do an mx lookup.
The examples Viktor posted didn't include brackets.
T
>> Patrick Saweikis wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>>
>>
>> We are using postfix 2.3.8 and have it integrated with
>> mysql and transport maps are set on a per domain basis this way
>> (transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-transport.cf,
>> mysql-transport.cf contains the authentication a
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:28:38PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:45:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Patrick Saweikis:
> > > > We are now trying to incorporate a way to create redundancy
> > > > on the relay end, so currently w
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:45:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Patrick Saweikis:
> > > We are now trying to incorporate a way to create redundancy
> > > on the relay end, so currently we may just have the transport map set to
> > > "smtp:[10.1.1.7]" and are try
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:45:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Patrick Saweikis:
> > We are now trying to incorporate a way to create redundancy
> > on the relay end, so currently we may just have the transport map set to
> > "smtp:[10.1.1.7]" and are trying to find a way to tell it
Patrick Saweikis:
> We are now trying to incorporate a way to create redundancy
> on the relay end, so currently we may just have the transport map set to
> "smtp:[10.1.1.7]" and are trying to find a way to tell it that if it
> cannot relay to the transport_maps location, try this other
2009/5/9 Patrick Saweikis :
> relay to the transport_maps location, try this other. I had done some
> research and found that smtp_fallback_relay should do what I need. I tried
> implementing this without success, I am getting “unknown mail transport
> error” when enabling that option, whether the
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> Patrick Saweikis wrote:
>
>>
>> We are now trying to incorporate a way to create
>> redundancy on the relay end, so currently we may just have the
>> transport map set to “smtp:[10.1.1.7]” and are trying to find a way to
>> tell it that if it canno
Patrick Saweikis wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> We are using postfix 2.3.8 and have it integrated with
> mysql and transport maps are set on a per domain basis this way
> (transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-transport.cf,
> mysql-transport.cf contains the authentication and mysql quer
Hello
We are using postfix 2.3.8 and have it integrated with mysql
and transport maps are set on a per domain basis this way
(transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-transport.cf,
mysql-transport.cf contains the authentication and mysql query to
retrieve this info).
64 matches
Mail list logo
