On 08/27/2015 05:01 AM, dravion.sm...@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi John
>
> I just moved the topic off the devel list
>
> >from the postfix side you can do it without multiple instances. You'd
> >need an additional lmtp transport in master.cf with customized settings
> >for lmtp_bind_address/lmtp_bind_addre
Dear All,
I would like to realize a postfix setup where:
- I have 1 public IP address
- at least 2 domains
- one postfix instace
After setting up (one) domain alias for the IP I experienced problem
when sending mail. Since I have one IP I could set up only one PTR
record which causes proble
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:53:19 +0200
z...@oper.hu wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to realize a postfix setup where:
>
> - I have 1 public IP address
>
> - at least 2 domains
>
> - one postfix instace
>
> After setting up (one) domain alias for the IP I experienced problem
> when sending mai
2015-08-27 10:04 időpontban Koko Wijatmoko ezt írta:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:53:19 +0200
> z...@oper.hu wrote:
>
>> Dear All, I would like to realize a postfix setup where: - I have 1 public
>> IP address - at least 2 domains - one postfix instace After setting up (one)
>> domain alias for
On 2015-08-27 Koko Wijatmoko wrote:
> PTR can only map to 1 IP, one PTR for one IP is enough even using
> multiple domain with postfix.
Technically you can have PTR records resolve to multiple names, just
like you can have A records resolving to multiple IP Addresses. It's
just best practice to re
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 07:39:48 +0200, Martin Skjöldebrand stated:
> After a lot of head scratching and despair, I *think* I got the
> problem down to sasl authentication didn't authenticate. I can now
> send from one account (this) but not my main address with the same
> settings (w/ change of
Hi,
On 2015-08-27 10:27, z...@oper.hu wrote:
2015-08-27 10:04 időpontban Koko Wijatmoko ezt írta:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:53:19 +0200
z...@oper.hu wrote:
Dear All, I would like to realize a postfix setup where: - I have
1 public IP address - at least 2 domains - one postfix instace
After sett
Quoting Postfix User :
I assume you have read: http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
Specifically, if the problem is SASL related, consider including the output
from the saslfinger tool. This can be found at
http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/.
Yup, and now
Hi,
I have mail forwarders used for SPAM mitigation where the addresses
appear on a public web page. With many ISPs using SPF, I'm concerned
that it won't be too long before these forwarded messages start to be
discarded. I have read that implementing a Sender Rewriting Scheme may
solve thi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:02:36PM +0100, Mick wrote:
> I have
> read that implementing a Sender Rewriting Scheme may solve this problem,
> and viewed a couple tutorials showing 'pfixtools' and 'postsrsd'. At least
> one of those schemes re-writes the envelope for every received message which
> se
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:02:36PM +0100, Mick wrote:
>
> > I have
> > read that implementing a Sender Rewriting Scheme may solve this problem,
> > and viewed a couple tutorials showing 'pfixtools' and 'postsrsd'. At least
> > one of those schemes re-writes the envelope for ever
On 27/08/2015 14:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:02:36PM +0100, Mick wrote:
At least
one of those schemes re-writes the envelope for every received message which
seems overkill to me.
That's what needs to be done.
Okay. I'm surprised though.
Does anyone know if th
On 27/08/2015 14:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 02:02:36PM +0100, Mick wrote:
Does anyone know if there's a table based way to get
cleanup(8) to rewrite on matching the local alias? canonical(5)??
No. Secure SRS rewriting that does not turn your machine i
Mick skrev den 2015-08-27 15:02:
I will be pleased to read of any alternatives, if there are any.
drop sender-id, drop srs
use spf, sign with dkim
monitor dmarc
https://dmarcian.com/ i can only say good things about this domain, it
have helped me on track with it all, even for domains that
On 08/26/2015 09:52 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:43:39PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
Furthermore, support for 1->3 mappings might lead users to erroneously
expect 0->2 mappings, but the latter are in fact problematic. So
supporting neither of the potential mappings is
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:46:29PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
> Maybe 0 and 1 for Certificate Usage field should be deprecated in DANE
> altogether, especially if there ever are plans to move away from Certificate
> Authorities in the future.
First win the user base, then win the standards war.
Thanks for your reply Benny.
On 27/08/2015 20:19, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Mick skrev den 2015-08-27 15:02:
I will be pleased to read of any alternatives, if there are any.
drop sender-id, drop srs
Dropping sender-id? Do you mean leave MAIL FROM: <> blank or have I got
the wrong end of the
17 matches
Mail list logo
