Exchange 2010 and recipient verification

Hello, My mail gateway Postfix acts as mail exchanger for the domain 'recipientdomain.it'. After receiving a message for the domain, it forwards emails to the postoffice server (MS Exchange 2010) with address xxx.yyy.www.zzz. The mail gateway is configured for recipient verification for domain

Re: Exchange 2010 and recipient verification

Scappatura Rocco: > Aug 29 11:23:56 mailgw postfix/smtp[17683]: 6FF3AD5C79: > to=, > relay=xxx.yyy.www.zzz[xxx.yyy.www.zzz]:25, delay=0.03, > delays=0.01/0.01/0.01/0.01, dsn=4.4.2, status=undeliverable (lost connection > with xxx.yyy.www.zzz[xxx.yyy.www.zzz] while sending RCPT TO) > > It seems

RE: Exchange 2010 and recipient verification

> -Original Message- > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix- > us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:37 PM > To: Postfix users > Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 and recipient verification > > Scappatura Rocco: > > Aug 29 11:2

Logging Bounces

Is there a way to add more info to "status=bounced" entries? For instance, I would like to see the from email and subject on the same line. Aug 25 11:40:27 mail postfix/smtp[22413]: 83A7643CEB: to=, relay=mxserver.domain.com[XX.XX.XX.XXX]:25, delay=0.57, delays=0/0/0.41/0.16, dsn=5.0.0, status=bo

Re: Logging Bounces

Am 29.08.2013 19:27, schrieb Roman Gelfand: > Is there a way to add more info to "status=bounced" entries? For > instance, I would like to see the from email and subject on the same > line. grep for "83A7643CEB" and you get from address and all sort of details like the sender, client-IP and info

Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check

--On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM +0900 peter evans wrote: Combine these two into one. put permit_sasl_ at the top as it is a first match wins thing. And of course, re-educate your client that auth belongs on port 587. (for example, Japan has a lot of plac

newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM +0900 peter evans wrote: > > >> Combine these two into one. put permit_sasl_ at the top >> as it is a first match wins thing. And of course, re-educate >> your client that auth belo

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

Am 29.08.2013 21:34, schrieb Glenn English: > I'm under the impression that 587 is to be used by my local users > (email clients to local MTA), and 25 is used by MTA<->MTA. Is this wrong? correct > And /etc/services says: > >> auth 113/tcp authentication tap ident > > not 587

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On Aug 29, 2013, at 1:37 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: > > > Am 29.08.2013 21:34, schrieb Glenn English: >> I'm under the impression that 587 is to be used by my local users >> (email clients to local MTA), and 25 is used by MTA<->MTA. Is this wrong? > > correct > >> And /etc/services says: >>

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:34 , Glenn English wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > >> --On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM +0900 peter evans >> wrote: >> >> >>> Combine these two into one. put permit_sasl_ at the top >>> as it is a first match wins thi

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote: > $ grep 587 /etc/services > submission 587/tcp > submission 587/udp That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions? I looked at RFC6409 (the newest I could find on 587), and all it said was "port 587" -- the protocol isn't

RE: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

There are no MTAs that accept submission on UDP, yet, so maybe reserved for future use? t From: Glenn English Sent: ‎29/‎08/‎2013 3:44 PM To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: newbie check Was [Re: por

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On 8/29/2013 3:43 PM, Glenn English wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote: > >> $ grep 587 /etc/services >> submission 587/tcp >> submission 587/udp > > That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions? > > I looked at RFC6409 (the newest I could find on

SMTP over UDP (was: newbie check...)

Noel Jones: > On 8/29/2013 3:43 PM, Glenn English wrote: > > > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote: > > > >> $ grep 587 /etc/services > >> submission 587/tcp > >> submission 587/udp > > > > That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions? > > > > I looked at R

Re: SMTP over UDP (was: newbie check...)

On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >> It's standard SMTP over tcp, typically with STARTTLS and AUTH. I >> imagine the udp entry is a historical artifact. > > Plaintext SMTP over UDP would require that the MTA invents major > parts of TCP, including the parts that deal with packet

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On 08/30/2013 08:53 AM, Terry Gilsenan wrote: > There are no MTAs that accept submission on UDP, yet, so maybe reserved > for future use? No, it's just the assignment from IANA. In the past when either a TCP or UDP port assignment was requested both were assigned, this does not mean that there is

Re: Logging Bounces

Hi On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:27:18 -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote: > Is there a way to add more info to "status=bounced" entries? For > instance, I would like to see the from email and subject on the same > line. I usually do a "extended" log for all emails, so its easier to parse the log when

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

>> submission 587/udp I've been doing this for a long time, and I've never seen anyone try to do SMTP over anything other than TCP. Regards, John Levine, postmas...@cauce.org, CAUCE postmaster http://www.cauce.org

Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]

On 08/30/2013 02:49 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>> submission 587/udp > > I've been doing this for a long time, and I've never seen anyone try > to do SMTP over anything other than TCP. You'll see this for a lot of services in the file. The old practice was for IANA to assign both tcp and ud