Re: PCRE2 error

2022-02-18 Thread Carlos Velasco
Trying to test latest postfix 3.7.0 with PCRE2 I have found a problem in building documentation. According to PCRE_README (http://www.postfix.org/PCRE_README.html), pcre2-config is used: "AUXLIBS_PCRE=`pcre2-config --libs`" But "pcre2-config" doesn't have "--libs" as available argument. # pcr

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread P.V.Anthony
On 18/2/22 00:13, Noel Jones wrote: The fix is to tell your postfix to not offer STARTTLS in the EHLO response, using smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps something like: # main.cf smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_ad

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread P.V.Anthony
On 18/2/22 00:13, Noel Jones wrote: The fix is to tell your postfix to not offer STARTTLS in the EHLO response, using smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps something like: # main.cf smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_a

Re: PCRE2 error

2022-02-18 Thread Wietse Venema
Carlos Velasco: > `pcre2-config --libs8` worked for me. > I have libs in non-standard locations, "make makefiles" doesn't work for me. Surprise, "make makefiles" uses "pcre2-config --libs8". and "pcre2-config --cflags". Wietse

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread Wietse Venema
P.V.Anthony: > On 18/2/22 00:13, Noel Jones wrote: > > > The fix is to tell your postfix to not offer STARTTLS in the EHLO > > response, using smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps > > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps > > > > > > > > something l

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread Noel Jones
> On Feb 18, 2022, at 7:02 AM, P.V.Anthony wrote: > I am reporting back to say it works well. > > One more question. In the maps file is it possible to use a hostname instead > of an ip address? > > P.V.Anthony > > No. The docs say the table is not searched by hostname — Noel Jones

Re: canonical_maps vs. *_recipient_maps

2022-02-18 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 2/17/2022 6:47 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: last week's discussions showed that using *canonical_maps to e.g. map to different domains can result into taking all addresses as existing: https://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=164459031004167&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=16445973

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread P.V.Anthony
On 18/2/22 22:05, Wietse Venema wrote: One more question. In the maps file is it possible to use a hostname instead of an ip address? No, we want this to be RELIABLE. Specify a net/masl form to exclude a rangeof IP addresses. Thank you very much for the clarifications. I will learn more abou

Re: canonical_maps vs. *_recipient_maps

2022-02-18 Thread Wietse Venema
Matus UHLAR - fantomas: > On 17.02.22 10:56, Noel Jones wrote: > >This could be better documented, but basically when receiving mail > >postfix does not do a full expansion of the recipient address. So the > >first time an address is accepted by canonical, virtual, local, relay, > >... whatever

Re: Need help with smtp_tls_policy_maps settings.

2022-02-18 Thread Wietse Venema
P.V.Anthony: > On 18/2/22 22:05, Wietse Venema wrote: > > >> One more question. In the maps file is it possible to use a hostname > >> instead of an ip address? > > > > No, we want this to be RELIABLE. Specify a net/masl form > > to exclude a rangeof IP addresses. > > Thank you very much for the

Re: canonical_maps vs. *_recipient_maps

2022-02-18 Thread Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 18.02.2022 o godz. 11:17:13 Wietse Venema pisze: > Starting to wonder if reject_unverified_recipient should be given > more publicity. Definitely should. I always thought of reject_unverified_recipient only in context of a front-end server relaying mail to the final server, which is a pretty

Re: canonical_maps vs. *_recipient_maps

2022-02-18 Thread Wietse Venema
Jaroslaw Rafa: > Dnia 18.02.2022 o godz. 11:17:13 Wietse Venema pisze: > > Starting to wonder if reject_unverified_recipient should be given > > more publicity. > > Definitely should. I always thought of reject_unverified_recipient only in > context of a front-end server relaying mail to the final