Mayuresh:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:14:37AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > insiders_only = check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/insiders,
> > reject
>
> On above line if I replace reject with reject_unauth_destination it
> becomes permissive rather than rejecting.
>
> What is the ex
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:25:42AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> reject, with error code:
> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html (section: REJECT ACTIONS)
>
The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
But an
Mayuresh:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:25:42AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > reject, with error code:
> > http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html (section: REJECT ACTIONS)
> >
>
> The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
> mail to gmail confirms that was the one
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
> > mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
> >
> > But an additional remark gmail makes is "the remote server is
> > misconfigured".
> >
> >
On 17 Jan 2019, at 11:03, Mayuresh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the
bounced
mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
But an additional remark gmail makes is "the remote server i
Wietse,
Thanks very much. That worked like a charm.
cheers,
ski
On 1/16/19 4:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ski Kacoroski:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a blackbox UPS that send this email when I look at it with postcat
>>
>> *** MESSAGE CONTENTS deferred/B/BFE60169 ***
>> regular_text: Received: from lo
Bastian Schmidt:
> Shall I remove the check again? After all, it's just a simple if and
> won't hurt. In case later someone makes initialization conditional it
> would prevent the segfault.
Removing this initialization would be a bad idea. The way the
code works is that all table variables are
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:22:46AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> You truly need to ask whoever runs that other server to explain why they
> believe your server is misconfigured if you want a definitive answer.
This is certainly strangest of the mailing lists I ever participated in. I
am certainly sign
