Hi,
> Is "_submission._tcp" special only in the SMTP client? What happens
> with "_submission._tcp.$mydomain in other Postfix programs?
_submission._tcp is special only to SMTP client. Behaviour of all other
programs remains the same.
> The patch changes the global proto_info structure. That is
Tomas Korbar:
> Hi,
>
> > Is "_submission._tcp" special only in the SMTP client? What happens
> > with "_submission._tcp.$mydomain in other Postfix programs?
>
> _submission._tcp is special only to SMTP client. Behaviour of all other
> programs remains the same.
>
> > The patch changes the globa
Wietse Venema:
> Whoa. SRV specifies a lot of things that your patch is ignoring.
>
> - TCP or UDP port
> - priority and weight
> - there can be more than one record
Looking at RFC 6186, the Postfix client definitely should not ignore
the port in the SRV record.
Also, the Postfix DNS client shou
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:46:10AM +0200, Tomas Korbar wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I would like to start a discussion about support for SRV records, mainly
> record for submission service of a domain.
> As is stated in [0], domain can publish dns record, which tells services
> where the submission service
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:46:10AM +0200, Tomas Korbar wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > I would like to start a discussion about support for SRV records, mainly
> > record for submission service of a domain.
> > As is stated in [0], domain can publish dns record, which tells services
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:02:06PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The MSA needs be authenticated before password-equivalent authentication
> > is performed.
>
> Authenticate what hostname? The SRV record is like an MX record on
> steroids, there are no guarantees about what hostname to expect.
I wrote:
> SRV lookup can return more than one record, and those records
> specify a TCP or UDP port. It basically means that SRV returns
> someothing similar to MX lookup except that it also returns a port
> to connect to.
And:
> This means that we'd have to extend the DNS_RR with at least a
> fi
Could anybody explain *why* using this record by Postfix is needed at all?
As far as I understand, SRV records are meant to be use by mail *clients*, to
simplify MUA configuration by the end user (no need to type in hostnames of
IMAP and SMTP servers, etc.)
Postfix is not supposed to be configure
Hello,
I'm running a postfix mail server on a fresh IP address that has some
bad reputation from the previous owner. So I had a lot of bounces in the
last days which I had to clean up.
One customer complained about a bounce that returned after few days (all
other returned immediately), so I
On 28-7-20 23:02, Michael Wyraz wrote:
I'm not 100% if that's a BUG or misconfiguration or misbehavior of the
other MTA. But the resulting behavior is at least not what's expected.
Looks like your IP address is blocked by Cloudmark
-- CUT --
If you believe the reputation of your IP address i
Hello,
Looks like your IP address is blocked by Cloudmark
I'm totally aware of that. My issue is not that I'm blocked but that the
message got deferred instead of bounced (although the remote sent a 550).
Best regards,
Michael.
Michael Wyraz:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running a postfix mail server on a fresh IP address that has some
> bad reputation from the previous owner. So I had a lot of bounces in the
> last days which I had to clean up.
>
> One customer complained about a bounce that returned after few days (all
> other
Hello Wietse,
thank you for the response. I tried to find the correct section in RFCs
that describes this but I did not find the place where it defines that a
EHLO cannot be answered with a 550.
Can you point me to the right RFC section?
Best regards,
Michael.
Michael Wyraz:
Hello,
I'm
Michael Wyraz:
> Hello Wietse,
>
> thank you for the response. I tried to find the correct section in RFCs
> that describes this but I did not find the place where it defines that a
> EHLO cannot be answered with a 550.
Of course it can send 5XX any time.
Where does the RFC say that a server c
On 29/07/20 9:54 am, Michael Wyraz wrote:
Hello Wietse,
thank you for the response. I tried to find the correct section in RFCs
that describes this but I did not find the place where it defines that a
EHLO cannot be answered with a 550
Can you point me to the right RFC section?
It can be,
On 27/07/20 7:46 pm, Tomas Korbar wrote:
I used this patch [1] to make postfix 3.5.4 support resolving of this:
"relayhost = [_submission._tcp.$mydomain]:587"
as a valid host for submission of mail in my domain.
I don't particularly care for this syntax because it clashes with syntax
for a
On 29/07/20 8:19 am, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Could anybody explain *why* using this record by Postfix is needed at all?
As far as I understand, SRV records are meant to be use by mail *clients*, to
simplify MUA configuration by the end user (no need to type in hostnames of
IMAP and SMTP servers, et
Hello,
thank you for the Feedback. I'll contact the receiver's postmaster and
tell them the RFC violation.
To work around this you can set an smtp_reply_filter:
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtp_reply_filter = pcre:/etc/postfix/smtp_reply_filter.pcre
/etc/postfix/smtp_reply_filter.pcre
/
18 matches
Mail list logo
