Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
First of all, thanks for the answer.
> The Postfix instance before
> the content filter uses sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
> to send mail with a null sender to the first smtp transport,
> and everything else to the second smtp transp
Hi all,
from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
"Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and
therefore the expected syntax is that of default_transport, not the
syntax of transport_maps. Specifically, this does not support the
transport_maps syntax for nul
Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> First of all, thanks for the answer.
>
> > The Postfix instance before
> > the content filter uses sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
> > to send mail with a null sender to the first smtp transport,
> > and everyt
James MacLachlan:
> Hi List,
>
> I have read the documentation, and do not understand if this is possible,
> but I think it should be. I have a spam filter that is required to listen
> on the MX of my domain, but it does not support alias expansion, so the
> postfix server has to do the expansio
Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Hi all,
>
> from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
> "Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and
> therefore the expected syntax is that of default_transport, not the
> syntax of transport_maps. Specifically, this does not support the
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Fabio Sangiovanni:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
> > "Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and
> > therefore the expected syntax is that of default_transport, not the
> > syntax of
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
> > One question: since sender_dependent_default_transport_maps overrides
> > default_transport, how can I have this within a relay domain configuration?
>
> The Postfix instance before the content filter sends *all mail* to
> the content filter. This simpl
Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
language, which is currently not included with Postfix.
Wietse
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> language, which is currently not included wi
Wietse Venema:
> Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> language, which is currently not included with Postfix.
Your original
Wietse:
> Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> language, which is currently not included with Postfix.
Fabio Sangiovanni:
>
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Wietse Venema:
> > Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> > to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> > It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> > language, which is
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> In the end, it appears that the more verbose configuration language
> wins.
Thanks, this should also get rid of the double instance + content filter.
It should work properly, and let's hope requirements don't change :)
Fabio
On 8/27/2013 5:01 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 08/25/2013 08:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote:
>> Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts
>> are listening.
>>
>> I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a
>> list of IP ranges that (according to S
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, Wietse Venema wrote:
James MacLachlan:
Hi List,
I have read the documentation, and do not understand if this is possible,
but I think it should be. I have a spam filter that is required to listen
on the MX of my domain, but it does not support alias expansion, so the
po
Wietse:
> Postfix receives all mail from the filter, therefore expand your
> virtual aliases in Postfix and be done with it. No need to filter
> mail twice.
James MacLachlan:
> This solution requires delegating alias buckets to someone, rather than
> everyone, which does not meet the enduser requi
Fabio Sangiovanni nweb.it> writes:
> Is someone willing to clarify this a little?
Sorry if I quote myself, but what about this?
Is it to be considered an error in the docs?
I'm referring to the possibility to specify a
null nexthop in sender_dependent_default_transport_maps,
while the documentat
Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Fabio Sangiovanni nweb.it> writes:
>
> > Is someone willing to clarify this a little?
>
> Sorry if I quote myself, but what about this?
> Is it to be considered an error in the docs?
> I'm referring to the possibility to specify a
> null nexthop in sender_dependent_default_t
On 8/27/2013 6:34 PM, John Allen wrote:
> On 27/08/2013 6:09 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>> A simpler way to do that would be to not put these networks in
>> mynetworks.
>>
> If I remember correctly the question was how do I stop local users using
> port 25, while allowing them to access port 587. I
We have a client allowing auth'd submissions over port 25. Unfortunately,
the authenticated submissions are hitting their RBL settings. The postfix
release is 2.10.0, with the following parameters:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
permit_mynetworks, reject_unlisted_r
On 8/28/2013 2:06 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> We have a client allowing auth'd submissions over port 25.
> Unfortunately, the authenticated submissions are hitting their RBL
> settings. The postfix release is 2.10.0, with the following
> parameters:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Fabio Sangiovanni:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps supports different syntax
> than transport_maps.
>
> Both support the form "name:" and "name" (both mean the same thing).
> That's where the similarity ends.
>
> In addition transport_maps s
--On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:22 PM -0500 Noel Jones
wrote:
On 8/28/2013 2:06 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
We have a client allowing auth'd submissions over port 25.
Unfortunately, the authenticated submissions are hitting their RBL
settings. The postfix release is 2.10.0, with the fol
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:06:17PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> We have a client allowing auth'd submissions over port 25.
> Unfortunately, the authenticated submissions are hitting their RBL
> settings. The postfix release is 2.10.0, with the following
> parameters:
>
> smtpd_recipient_r
On 28 Aug 2013, at 13:06 , Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I thought the smtpd_relay_restrictions would automatically allow the email to
> pass the RBLs, but this does not appear to be the case.
You would have to check the RBLs *after* permit_sasl_authenticated, and you
would have to permit_sasl
Hi,
Our Admissions department is looking to use Mandrill to get a better handle on
emails they send out to perspective students. With Mandril, we relay all the
mail we generate to one on their servers using SMTP, but they want the
connection encrypted. I already have one server setup that all
On 8/28/2013 9:23 PM, Rob Tanner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our Admissions department is looking to use Mandrill to get a better
> handle on emails they send out to perspective students. With
> Mandril, we relay all the mail we generate to one on their servers
> using SMTP, but they want the connection enc
27 matches
Mail list logo
