On 06/17/2012 08:38 AM, Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Wiebe Cazemier"
Cc: "Postfix users"
Sent: Sunday, 17 June, 2012 2:41:29 AM
Subject: Re: Relaying e-mail from the bash command line (with sendmail probably)
Wiebe Cazemier:
Transport maps can b
On 06/15/2012 10:36 AM, JonL wrote:
I had a system crash not long ago and after rebuilding the system I
need to know can I copy the postfix system and imap protocol back from
the hdd as long as I can access it.
and the mailboxes?
Thanks
In case the old system is unusable but the filesystem is
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeroen Geilman"
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Sunday, 17 June, 2012 11:15:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Relaying e-mail from the bash command line (with sendmail
> probably)
>
> Use the content_filter to directly relay to the destination host ?
I would lov
Hi Wietse
I was messing with transport maps a while ago, what i remeber it was only
possible to put domains in transport maps. This is however good to know,
would you please post an example how this would look like
thank you.
Andreas.B
On 06/17/2012 12:21 PM, Andreas.B wrote:
Hi Wietse
I was messing with transport maps a while ago, what i remeber it was
only possible to put domains in transport maps. This is however good
to know, would you please post an example how this would look like
thank you.
Andreas.B
http://www.p
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 01:29:53PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 06/17/2012 12:21 PM, Andreas.B wrote:
> >I was messing with transport maps a while ago, what i remeber
> >it was only possible to put domains in transport maps.
Your memory might be incorrect. Per-addresss transport_maps have
ex
- Original Message -
From: "/dev/rob0"
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: individual user transport maps
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 01:29:53PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 06/17/2012 12:21 PM, Andreas.B wrote:
>I was messing with transport maps a while ago, what
Wietse,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 08:40:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Thomas Preissler:
> > Jun 14 19:20:02 dumbledor postfix/smtpd[1472]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> > from unknown[2002::XXX:::XXX]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
> > Client host [2002::XXX::4d49:4f1] blocked using bl.s
I'm sure this can't be the first time this has come up, but my google-foo
just isn't strong enough to find what I'm looking for. Here's the
scenario:
Postfix is final destination for domain1.tld, and is implemented as
virtual mailboxes (no local unix accounts), with mysql lookups. So far so
good
IP address 2002:4d49:4f1::4d49:4f1 is not blocked here, neither in
postscreen nor in smtpd:
postconf -n:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = bl.spamcop.net
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
logging:
Jun 17 14:29:30 tail postfix/postscreen[14560]: CONNECT from
[2002:
On 2012-06-17 Chris Richards wrote:
> I'm sure this can't be the first time this has come up, but my
> google-foo just isn't strong enough to find what I'm looking for.
> Here's the scenario:
>
> Postfix is final destination for domain1.tld, and is implemented as
> virtual mailboxes (no local unix
Non-production release postfix-2.10-20120617-nonprod has support
for up-stream proxy agents in postscreen(8) and smtpd(8).
To enable, specify one of:
postscreen_upstream_proxy_protocol = haproxy
smtpd_upstream_proxy_protocol = haproxy
haproxy is not the only proxy agent that works with
> Dynamic routing like "if us...@domain1.tld doesn't exist, then forward
> the mail to us...@domain2.tld" is not possible in Postfix (at least not
> that I'm aware of).
Ah, that's what I was really looking for. Thank you.
The more I think about this whole idea, the more I think it is a bad idea,
Hi Wietse,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:25:12PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Non-production release postfix-2.10-20120617-nonprod has support
> for up-stream proxy agents in postscreen(8) and smtpd(8).
>
> To enable, specify one of:
>
> postscreen_upstream_proxy_
14 matches
Mail list logo
