Hello,
If I have a virtual alias map like this:
@domain.tldsomeaddr...@otherdomain.tld superaddr...@somedomain.tld
Then all e-mails to domain.tld will be forwarded to the two given
addresses, right?
Fine. But then, I want those e-mails to be delivered to the original
recipient too. For
Hello, i use exim with relay connection to postfix (postfix is the mta
service).
I use a autoreply in exim:
# Exim filter
if error_message then
finish
endif
if $message_headers contains ${local_part}\@${domain} then
mail
to ${reply_address}
from "\"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Administraci=F3n_TRIXI
MegaBrutal:
> Hello,
>
> If I have a virtual alias map like this:
>
> @domain.tldsomeaddr...@otherdomain.tld superaddr...@somedomain.tld
>
> Then all e-mails to domain.tld will be forwarded to the two given
> addresses, right?
>
> Fine. But then, I want those e-mails to be delivered to
Emanuel:
> Apr? 6 10:48:04 smarthost01 postfix/cleanup[22572]: C2A952001508A:
> warning: header From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Administraci=F3n_TRIXIE?="
> *
That is ENVELOPE FROM, not header from.
Wietse
thank you for the correction
El 06/04/18 a las 11:03, Wietse Venema escribió:
Emanuel:
Apr? 6 10:48:04 smarthost01 postfix/cleanup[22572]: C2A952001508A:
warning: header From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Administraci=F3n_TRIXIE?="
*
That is ENVELOPE FROM, not header from.
Wietse
--
envialosimp
Hi Philip,
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> I currently use DKIM and as per the RFC for DKIM, I don’t include trace
>> headers in the message hash that makes up the DKIM signature. I am under
>> the impression that my DKIM signatures should be correct in this case if I
>> use your solution
On 06/04/2018 09:27 PM, J Doe wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>
>>> I currently use DKIM and as per the RFC for DKIM, I don’t include trace
>>> headers in the message hash that makes up the DKIM signature. I am under
>>> the impression that my DKIM signatures should be cor
Hi Karol,
> I am using this:
>
> /^(Received:) from.*]\).*(.{2}by mail\.nimitz\.pl.*Postfix.*) (with
> [E]{0,1}SMTP[S]{0,1}[A]{0,1}) (.*)/ REPLACE $1 from mail.nimitz.pl
> (localhost [127.0.0.1])$2 with SMTP $4
>
> Just change 'mail.nimitz.pl' with FQDN of your server. This expression
> works fo
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 12:34 AM, J Doe wrote:
>
> I tried the following with a visual regex program (to make checking captures
> easier):
>
> /etc/postfix/submission_privacy_header
>
> /(Received\:\s*from)[^\;]+(\;\s[A-Z]{1}[a-z]{2,3}\,)\s+(\d{1,2}[^\n]+)/
> REPLACE $1 [127.0.0
Hi Viktor,
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> That's PCRE syntax.
>
>> Does anyone know what I’m doing wrong and/or is there a way to make Postfix
>> provide more debug output for a regexp: operation ?
>
> You're using a "regexp" table, those don't support PCRE.
Tha
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:23 AM, J Doe wrote:
>
> I did some Googling for doing PCRE to POSIX regular expressions and updated
> the string:
>
>
> /^(Received:\sfrom)[^;]+(;\s[A-Z]{1}[a-z]{2,3},)\s+([[:digit:]]{1,2}[^\n]+)/
> REPLACE $1 [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by myserver.com$2 $
Hi Viktor,
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:26 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:23 AM, J Doe wrote:
>>
>> I did some Googling for doing PCRE to POSIX regular expressions and updated
>> the string:
>>
>>
>> /^(Received:\sfrom)[^;]+(;\s[A-Z]{1}[a-z]{2,3},)\s+([[:digit:]]{1,2}[^\n]
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:34 AM, J Doe wrote:
>
> mmm. I just sent a test message via submission to a Gmail account and
> checked the headers and the replacement works.
>
> According to the site [1] \s is shorthand for POSIX regular expressions.
>
> Perhaps the POSIX regex library compiled w
Hi Viktor,
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:50 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:34 AM, J Doe wrote:
>>
>> mmm. I just sent a test message via submission to a Gmail account and
>> checked the headers and the replacement works.
>>
>> According to the site [1] \s is shorthand fo
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:59 AM, J Doe wrote:
>
> Ah, interesting - that must be it, then.
>
> This is on an Ubuntu 16.04 LTS server. I can see the dependencies compiled
> in from Ubuntu’s page [1] and GNU libc is listed. [2] seems to suggest that
> regular expressions are part of GNU libc.
>
On 7 April 2018 at 07:04, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 2018, at 1:59 AM, J Doe wrote:
> >
> > Ah, interesting - that must be it, then.
> >
> > This is on an Ubuntu 16.04 LTS server. I can see the dependencies
> compiled in from Ubuntu’s page [1] and GNU libc is listed. [2] seems to
Hi Viktor,
> On Apr 7, 2018, at 2:04 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> FreeBSD 11 (POSIX):
>
> $ echo "1 b" | egrep '\d\s\w'
> $
>
> MacOS High Sierra (POSIX with GNU or similar extensions):
>
> $ echo "1 b" | egrep '\d\s\w'
> 1 b
> $
>
> Your Ubuntu system most likely will match the Ma
Hi Viktor and Dominic,
If I do the following on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS:
$ echo "1 2" | egrep '[[:digit:]]\s[[:digit:]]’
1 2
… where “1 2” are highlighted in bash
Am I correct that since this POSIX regex for the digits AND the \s is still
being interpreted, my system must support the GNU rege
On 7 April 2018 at 07:39, J Doe wrote:
> Hi Viktor and Dominic,
>
> If I do the following on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS:
>
> $ echo "1 2" | egrep '[[:digit:]]\s[[:digit:]]’
> 1 2
>
> … where “1 2” are highlighted in bash
>
> Am I correct that since this POSIX regex for the digits AND the \s is
> st
19 matches
Mail list logo
