On 2014-10-10 16:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jan P. Kessler:
Or what the limitations are.
>>> Note that you can not return different results for different
>>> recipients at data or end_of_data stage. You can only pass or reject
>>> the whole mail at all.
>>>
>> p.s. the policy server example
Le 10/10/2014 06:40, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit :
In message <20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
man page resulted in
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
With Postfix installed, the exit code is always 0 and the resul
Am 13.10.2014 um 11:45 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
With Postfix i
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:51:04AM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
>> delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
>>
>> With Exim installed, I could just do a
>> "sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" a
Am 13.10.2014 um 11:45 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
> Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
> delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
>
> With Exim installed, I could just do a
> "sendmail -bv some.addr...@example.com" and check the exit code.
> With
Am 13.10.2014 um 12:12 schrieb Mike Cardwell:
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:51:04AM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Is there any way of asking Postfix if it thinks it is capable of
delivering a message to a particular email address, in real time?
With Exim installed, I could just do a
"send
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:22:38PM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Address verification is always a guess. You're assuming that by address
>> verification I'm talking about actually connecting to the remote SMTP
>> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
>> ab
On 10/10/2014 07:36 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Thank you. What you have written above does in fact clarify things a
> good deal more.
>
> Just to make sure that I'm crystal clear however, let me ask: When you
> say "terminated" what you are actually implying is just that the policy
> serve
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:27:41AM -0300, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
> Hi People!
> Anyone has a good rule for postfix smtpd whit fail2ban?
> Sorry for the OT:))
The mtpolicyd policy daemon has a plugin for directly adding IPs to
a fail2ban target without the logging/parsing.
It directly uses the
Mike Cardwell:
> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
> about asking Postfix if the syntax of the address is valid and if the
> DNS is set up suitably to be able to potentially be able to deliver
> the message. I.e, are there valid MX records etc. That is how Exim
>
Lothar Gesslein:
> As far as I understand it, $max_use is counted/incremented by the
> postfix master daemon, for each new incoming connection (it is a
No, that is incorrect, as are all inferences based on this.
Wietse
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:48:36 +0200
Markus Benning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:27:41AM -0300, Julio Cesar Covolato wrote:
> > Hi People!
> > Anyone has a good rule for postfix smtpd whit fail2ban?
> > Sorry for the OT:))
>
> The mtpolicyd policy daemon has a plugin for directly adding IPs
* on the Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 08:48:56AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> server and sending "RCPT TO". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking
>> about asking Postfix if the syntax of the address is valid and if the
>> DNS is set up suitably to be able to potentially be able to deliver
>> the messa
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:48:14PM +0200, Lothar Gesslein wrote:
> > Just to make sure that I'm crystal clear however, let me ask: When you
> > say "terminated" what you are actually implying is just that the policy
> > server process receives EOF on stdin, correct?
>
> AFAIK normal unix process
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:20:41PM +0200, A. Schulze wrote:
>
> > >How would Postfix know that "relay" ends at line 2? Comments may
> > >appear IN THE MIDDLE of a master.cf entry.
> >
> > Technically correct.
> > I read "line 3" but should read "the entry starting somewhere an
Wietse Venema:
> I have a version that reports the first and last non-empty, non-comment
> line numbers of a master.cf entry, or just one line number if the
> two are the same:
...
> But I'll drop the "last" line number because it is unnecessary given
> that we now have a precise start line number
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 03:35:09PM -0600, Robert Lopez wrote:
>
>> > Please see:
>> > http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html#safe_db
>>
>> The question "So these errors happen while the file is being rebuilt,
>> right?" is a very good
Robert Lopez:
> Today is the first time I have paid any attention to CDB.
> In looking at it, questions come to mind:
> Is D.J.B. version 0.75 considered production ready or development?
Yes. The code is stable. There is also Michael Tokarev's implementation.
> Is the new database created with CD
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 06:30:56PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Is D.J.B. version 0.75 considered production ready or development?
>
> Yes. The code is stable. There is also Michael Tokarev's implementation.
Many users (myself included) use Michael Tokarev's Tinycdb.
--
Viktor.
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.11.2.html]
Bugfixes for Postfix 2.11, 2.10, 2.9 and 2.8:
* Fix for DMARC implementations based on SPF policy plus DKIM
Milter. The PREPEND access/policy action added headers ABOVE
Hello!
Is it possible to require authentication based on specific properties of
an MUA or its connection?
I would like to require all connections that originate from the php-fpm
daemon (or its children) on the server in question to be forced to
authenticate when sending mail through Postfix.
At
On 10/13/2014 6:54 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Is it possible to require authentication based on specific properties of
> an MUA or its connection?
>
> I would like to require all connections that originate from the php-fpm
> daemon (or its children) on the server in question to be forced
On 10/13/2014 04:54 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
> If there is a better way to deal with this nuisance than resorting to
> stricter authentication protocols, I would love to hear alternate
> suggestions. [php direct mailing]
Have you considered adding "system" to the list of disallowed function
calls?
> On 17 Jul 2014, at 11:41 am, James Brown wrote:
>
>
>> On 16 Jul 2014, at 5:10 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:49:49PM +1000, James Brown wrote:
>>
>>> So change to:
>>>
>>> AUXLIBS=?-L/usr/local/lib -llber -lresolv -L/usr/lib ? ?
>>
>> Something like that
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:16:17PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
> > Victor, changing the order so that it is:
> >
> > make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> > CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
> > -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"dovecot\" \
> > -DDEF_COMMAND_DIR=\"/usr/local/sbin\" \
> > -DDEF_
> On 14 Oct 2014, at 4:13 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:16:17PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
>
>>> Victor, changing the order so that it is:
>>>
>>> make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
>>> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
>>> -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"d
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:19:34PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
> Thanks for your help Victor.
>
> make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
> -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"dovecot\" \
> -DDEF_COMMAND_DIR=\"/usr/local/sbin\" \
> -DDEF_CONFIG_DIR=\"/usr/local/etc
28 matches
Mail list logo
