Re: Non-Postfix mailbox store: separate domains, non-UNIX accounts

On Monday 25 June 2012 07:40 PM, Feel Zhou wrote: Hello My friend I read the documentation of virtual domain hosting. http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html. and use the next setting: 3virtual_mailbox_domains =example.co

common mailbox for design

Dear list, I need your suggestion to design a common organizational mailbox. The concept is; Whatever developer1,2,3 send to client1,2,3 or receive from them will be stored in a separate mailbox which will be accessible from the both end to see all the communication. Furthermore there will be a

Re: common mailbox for design

Am 26.06.2012 09:02, schrieb J. Bakshi: > Dear list, > > I need your suggestion to design a common organizational mailbox. > > The concept is; Whatever developer1,2,3 send to client1,2,3 or receive from > them > will be stored in a separate mailbox which will be accessible from the both > end

OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

On 2012-06-26 6:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your mail-client after send over SMTP was successful Yes, but it sure would be nice if we could do away with the need to ha

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Charles Marcus: > On 2012-06-26 6:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder > > on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your > > mail-client after send over SMTP was successful > > Yes, but it sure would be nice if we co

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Am 26.06.2012 12:59, schrieb Charles Marcus: > On 2012-06-26 6:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder >> on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your >> mail-client after send over SMTP was successful > > Yes, but it

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

* Wietse Venema : > Charles Marcus: > > On 2012-06-26 6:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder > > > on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your > > > mail-client after send over SMTP was successful > > > > Yes, bu

Re: common mailbox for design

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:21:00 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: [..] > > remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder > on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your > mail-client after send over SMTP was successful > [..] But what about the incomin

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 01:13:32PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 26.06.2012 12:59, schrieb Charles Marcus: [..] > > Yes, but it sure would be nice if we could do away with the need > > to have the client send the message over the wire *twice*, once to > > the smtp server for outbound del

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Am 26.06.2012 13:22, schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter: >>> smtpd_save_to_sent_folder = Sent >> >> I suppose this hypothetical feature would come with a little IMAP >> client, configuration parameters that specify the IMAP server address >> and port, IMAP server credentials, and so on. > > In the hypo

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

On 2012-06-26 7:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: Charles Marcus: it sure would be nice if we could do away with the need to have the client send the message over the wire *twice*, once to the smtp server for outbound delivery, then again to the IMAP server for saving the Sent copy, when the mail sto

Re: common mailbox for design

Am 26.06.2012 13:23, schrieb J. Bakshi: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:21:00 +0200 > Reindl Harald wrote: > > [..] >> >> remember that postfix is even not responsible for your sent-folder >> on a IMAP-server because these messages are stored there by your >> mail-client after send over SMTP w

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Charles Marcus: > All that would be required is for postfix to have the ability to save > emails directly to the mail store Sorry, that hasn't been an option for the last 15 years or so. Many of today's IMAP servers don't store email under /var/spool/mail in files that are owned by the individu

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

On 2012-06-26 8:21 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: Many of today's IMAP servers don't store email under /var/spool/mail in files that are owned by the individual user's UNIX system account. I guess maybe this is one of those 'lost in translation' issues. Currently, if postfix receives an email that

Re: Milter socket can only be inside /var/spool/postfix ?

On 6/26/2012 2:46 AM, Ram wrote: > I have a custom milter in C ( for email archiving ) which works fine > on my servers with postfix 2.8+. ( RHEL 5.5 ) > > When I tried to install the milter on a ubuntu box with postfix 2.7 , > unless I create the socket inside spool directory for eg. > /var/spool/

Re: common mailbox for design

On 26.06.2012 09:02, J. Bakshi wrote: The concept is; Whatever developer1,2,3 send to client1,2,3 or receive from them will be stored in a separate mailbox which will be accessible from the both end to see all the communication. Furthermore there will be a filter which can filter all communica

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Charles: > So, my question is, why can't the option that I described enable a > feature similar to the existing BCC feature, Appending mail to a NAMED FOLDER such as +Sent is NOT similar to the delivery of BCC mail. BCC email is delivered via the LMTP or equivalent interface which does not suppo

Re: OT - was Re: common mailbox for design

Wietse Venema: > Charles: > > So, my question is, why can't the option that I described enable a > > feature similar to the existing BCC feature, > > Appending mail to a NAMED FOLDER such as +Sent is NOT similar to > the delivery of BCC mail. > > BCC email is delivered via the LMTP or equivalent

Re: Hold Messages : Problem

On 6/25/2012 11:59 PM, santosh malavade wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Noel Jones > wrote: > > On 6/25/2012 2:03 AM, santosh malavade wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am trying to hold messages based on the client and sender > address,

Re: Non-Postfix mailbox store: separate domains, non-UNIX accounts

Hi, my friend I use another documentation to finish it Configuring Postfix as primary or backup MX host for a remote site http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html Thanks for Ram's answer. Tom 2012/6/26 Ram > > On Monday 25 June 2012 07:40 PM, Feel Zhou wrote: > > Hello My frie

reject_invalid_helo_hostname ambiguity in postconf(5) documentation

Hi, the postconf(5) documentation for reject_invalid_helo_hostname reads: > Reject the request when the HELO or EHLO hostname syntax is invalid. This seems ambiguous as it can be interpreted different ways: 1) 'HELO hostname' / 'EHLO hostname' syntax, i.e. HELO / EHLO syntax 2) hostname syntax fo

Plus (+ Address Extensions) addressing

I now have this working properly for a test account. It seems to me now that many of my difficulties stem from trying to map Sendmail techniques to Postfix. I am now considering the relationship between /etc/postfix/virtual and /etc/postfix/relay_domains. To deliver email to a local mailbox wher

Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known SSL version issue: warning: TLS library problem: 4425:error:1408F10B:SSL routi

backup/fallback for default_transport ?

Hi! We do have two external mail relays (MX 10 mx1 & MX 20 mx2) that accept mails for our domains, do lots of checks and relay them via a secure channel through the firewall into our network. Inside and outside we use postfix. When sending mails out, we use the same way: send them from our in

Verify & Berkeley DB Bug

After a recent server upgrade, I'm running Postfix 2.9.1 with libdb 5.1.25. I'm continuing to see the old error - postfix/verify[5189]: close database /var/lib/postfix/verify.db: No such file or directory (possible Berkeley DB bug) I tried performing a "db5.1_upgrade /var/lib/postfix/verify.d

Re: Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

Am 26.06.2012 20:04, schrieb Daniel L. Miller: > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", > and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known > SSL version issue: > > warni

Re: Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:04:16 AM Daniel L. Miller wrote: > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", > and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known > SSL version is

Re: reject_invalid_helo_hostname ambiguity in postconf(5) documentation

Jaroslav Skarvada: > Hi, > > the postconf(5) documentation for reject_invalid_helo_hostname reads: > > Reject the request when the HELO or EHLO hostname syntax is invalid. > > This seems ambiguous as it can be interpreted different ways: > 1) 'HELO hostname' / 'EHLO hostname' syntax, i.e. HELO /

Re: reject_invalid_helo_hostname ambiguity in postconf(5) documentation

Wietse Venema: > Jaroslav Skarvada: > > Hi, > > > > the postconf(5) documentation for reject_invalid_helo_hostname reads: > > > Reject the request when the HELO or EHLO hostname syntax is invalid. > > > > This seems ambiguous as it can be interpreted different ways: > > 1) 'HELO hostname' / 'EHLO

Postfix LMTP delivery issue with IPv6

In our IPv6 testing, we've found that postfix is unable to delivery to LMTP when running purely in IPv6 mode. All other aspects of postfix work just fine. Here is an example from the log: Jun 27 05:47:56 lb postfix/lmtp[32685]: BCD8720FE3: to=, relay=none, delay=17237, delays=17236/0.03/0/0

Re: Plus (+ Address Extensions) addressing

On 6/26/2012 8:35 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > I now have this working properly for a test account. It seems to me > now that many of my difficulties stem from trying to map Sendmail > techniques to Postfix. > > I am now considering the relationship between /etc/postfix/virtual and > /etc/postfix/

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

On 6/26/2012 1:04 PM, lutz.niede...@gmx.net wrote: > > Hi! > > We do have two external mail relays (MX 10 mx1 & MX 20 mx2) that accept mails > for our domains, do lots of checks and relay them via a secure channel > through the firewall into our network. Inside and outside we use postfix. > >

Re: Postfix LMTP delivery issue with IPv6

Quanah Gibson-Mount: > In our IPv6 testing, we've found that postfix is unable to delivery to LMTP > when running purely in IPv6 mode. All other aspects of postfix work just > fine. > > Here is an example from the log: > > Jun 27 05:47:56 lb postfix/lmtp[32685]: BCD8720FE3: > to=, relay=none,

Re: Verify & Berkeley DB Bug

Daniel L. Miller: > After a recent server upgrade, I'm running Postfix 2.9.1 with libdb > 5.1.25. I'm continuing to see the old error - postfix/verify[5189]: > close database /var/lib/postfix/verify.db: No such file or directory > (possible Berkeley DB bug) Your data should be safe: all operat

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

> > We do have two external mail relays (MX 10 mx1 & MX 20 mx2) that accept > mails for our domains, do lots of checks and relay them via a secure > channel through the firewall into our network. Inside and outside we use > postfix. > > > > When sending mails out, we use the same way: send them f

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

lutz.niede...@gmx.net: > > The best solution is to use MX records; that's what they're for. > > > > Alternately, look at > > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_fallback_relay > > > > Sure. But this is not exactly what I'm looking for. > We need a way to specify a second relay if the fi

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

On 6/26/2012 3:12 PM, lutz.niede...@gmx.net wrote: > We need a way to specify a second relay if the first does not answer. This is exactly what MX records are for. On the internal server specify something like #main.cf relayhost = gateway.example.com and arrange for appropriate MX records for

Re: Plus (+ Address Extensions) addressing

On Mon, June 25, 2012 18:47, Bill Cole wrote: > On 25 Jun 2012, at 14:03, James B. Byrne wrote: > > [...] >> The virtual_aliases map contains this: >> >> @example.com someuser >> > > So that any address in example.com is entirely replaced with the local > address so

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

> > We need a way to specify a second relay if the first does not answer. > > This is exactly what MX records are for. > > On the internal server specify something like > #main.cf > relayhost = gateway.example.com > > and arrange for appropriate MX records for gateway.example.com. > These can

Re: Plus (+ Address Extensions) addressing

On 6/26/2012 12:48 PM, James B. Byrne wrote: > My point of confusion at the moment is the relationship between > /etc/postfix/virtual and /etc/aliases (or in our case > /etc/postfix/aliases.main). http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html virtual_alias_maps apply to *all* addresses,

Re: Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

2012/6/26 Daniel L. Miller : > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", and > "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known SSL > version issue: > > warning: TLS library pro

Re: Postfix LMTP delivery issue with IPv6

--On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:41 PM -0400 Wietse Venema wrote: Quanah Gibson-Mount: However, the record exists: I suspect a site-specific error. It was indeed a site-specific error. It took me about an hour to track down. :P The person who set up the system had: "nameserver fc00

Re: backup/fallback for default_transport ?

On 6/26/2012 3:46 PM, lutz.niede...@gmx.net wrote: > > Except for the [transport] with default_transport where do relayhost and > default_transport differ in that scenario? Especially if I can also set > relay_transport... relayhost specifies a destination, default_transport specifies a deliv

Re: Postfix LMTP delivery issue with IPv6

also sprach Quanah Gibson-Mount [2012.06.26.2254 +0200]: > The person who set up the system had: > > "nameserver fc00:10:112:16::169 " > > in /etc/resolv.conf (without quotes). I.e., there was a space after > the IP address for the nameserver, which, of course, is a pain to > notice. … and obv

Re: Postfix LMTP delivery issue with IPv6

--On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:37 PM +0200 martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Quanah Gibson-Mount [2012.06.26.2254 +0200]: The person who set up the system had: "nameserver fc00:10:112:16::169 " in /etc/resolv.conf (without quotes). I.e., there was a space after the IP address for the nam

Re: Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:04:16 -0700 "Daniel L. Miller" wrote: > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", > and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known > SSL versio

re: howto send mail in mailbox to user

G'day all, I have a user mailbox that is full of important mail and I would like to send it to this user. Is there a command line command to do this? the existing user cannot access the mail and I can see there is mail in this mailbox. Thanks

Re: Ubuntu Precise packaged 2.9.1 & SSL 1.0.1

Chris: > 2012/6/26 Daniel L. Miller : > > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix - > > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", and > > "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known SSL > > version issue: > > > > war

Re: howto send mail in mailbox to user

On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:37 PM, JonL wrote: > G'day all, > > I have a user mailbox that is full of important mail and I would like to send > it to this user. Is there a command line command to do this? the existing > user cannot access the mail and I can see there is mail in this mailbox. 1) s