>From error message it feels like that private key is password protected.
It is possible that while exporting the key some passphrase was set.
If that is the case you need to remove the password protection of
private key using openssl.
> Dec 6 21:15:36 portus postfix/smtpd[18839]: warning: canno
Viktor Dukhovni writes:
>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:08 PM, micah wrote:
>>
>> Is there any reason why postfix, when compiled with TLS, can simply set
>> the default to 'may'?
>
> This is easy enough to implement, the only complication is
> that the documentation would need to explain the variable
>
Simon Ruderich:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 10:40:11AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> This patch (based on the 3.2.4 sources) tries to improve the
> >> documentation of the owner- alias handling. I hope I patched the
> >>
Hi all!
The organization I work for requires IPv6 compatibility in all new hardware
and software we deploy.
The issue is is we are having an issue with Postfix 2.1 (as shipped with
REL 7.4) being apparently IPv6 compatible. Should we build this from
source and use an updated release? And if so,
> Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 13:37:17 -0600
> From: Robert Wolfe
>
> Hi all!
>
> The organization I work for requires IPv6 compatibility in all new
> hardware and software we deploy.
>
> The issue is is we are having an issue with Postfix 2.1 (as shipped
> with REL 7.4) being apparently
But isn't 2.10 and 2.1 the same?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 13:37:17 -0600
> > From: Robert Wolfe
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > The organization I work for requires IPv6 compatibility in all new
> > hardware and software we deploy.
> >
> >
Or rather, AREN'T. Sorry. :) My grammar teacher would have had a time
with this one :)
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Robert Wolfe
wrote:
> But isn't 2.10 and 2.1 the same?
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard innovate.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 13:37:1
> Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 14:31:48 -0600
> From: Robert Wolfe
>
>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 13:37:17 -0600
>> > From: Robert Wolfe
>> >
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > The organization I work for requires IPv6 compatibilit
> Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 20:44:37 +
> From: Richard
>
>> Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 14:31:48 -0600
>> From: Robert Wolfe
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Date: Saturday, December 09, 2017 13:37:17 -0600
>>> > From: Robert Wolfe
>>> >
> On Dec 9, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Robert Wolfe wrote:
>
> The issue is is we are having an issue with Postfix 2.1 (as shipped with REL
> 7.4) being apparently IPv6 compatible. Should we build this from source and
> use an updated release? And if so, how new of a release should we use for
> IPv
10 matches
Mail list logo
