Hello list,
We have 3 smtp servers for sending messages. When mail in one server has
delivery issue, how can we setup it to use another more servers for
second/third delivery?
Thanks
Corey
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
Hello list,
another more question, does postfix support domain based vhosts?
such as different vhost has different policies, routes, milters etc.
Thanks
Corey
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to p
* Corey Hickman via Postfix-users :
> Hello list,
>
> We have 3 smtp servers for sending messages. When mail in one server has
> delivery issue, how can we setup it to use another more servers for
> second/third delivery?
You could use smtp_fallback_relay
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users:
> Hello list,
>
> another more question, does postfix support domain based vhosts?
> such as different vhost has different policies, routes, milters etc.
For near-complete isolation of queues, policies, and so on,
https://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users:
> how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to "inet_interfaces = " (i.e.
> blank)?
One says that Postfix will provide network service on all IP
addresses, the other does not, and all this is subject to
overrides in master.cf.
Neither constrains the SMTP client s
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-04 14:18:
We have 3 smtp servers for sending messages. When mail in one server
has delivery issue, how can we setup it to use another more servers
for second/third delivery?
retroisk answer, when postfix maillist was on cloud9, it had 3 ipv4, 3
Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-04 14:41:
* Corey Hickman via Postfix-users :
Hello list,
We have 3 smtp servers for sending messages. When mail in one server
has
delivery issue, how can we setup it to use another more servers for
second/third delivery?
You could use sm
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users:
> [OT] answer, when postfix maillist was on cloud9, it had 3 ipv4, 3
> ipv6, and i have newver seen mails that was remotely tempfailed used
> another ip in cloud9, why this ?
Because each host had its own mail queue. Only the majordomo
related files were shared,
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-04 15:28:
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users:
[OT] answer, when postfix maillist was on cloud9, it had 3 ipv4, 3
ipv6, and i have newver seen mails that was remotely tempfailed used
another ip in cloud9, why this ?
Because each host had its own m
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users:
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-04 15:28:
> > Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users:
> >> [OT] answer, when postfix maillist was on cloud9, it had 3 ipv4, 3
> >> ipv6, and i have newver seen mails that was remotely tempfailed used
> >> another ip in
On 2023-05-04 at 08:21:31 UTC-0400 (Thu, 04 May 2023 14:21:31 +0200)
Corey Hickman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello list,
another more question, does postfix support domain based vhosts?
It depends on what you mean by that...
There is no mechanism in SMTP for a server to det
It was more a rhetorical question in the context of documentation
improvement. Specifically, the documentation doesn't actually say what
[blank] means. I think something like the following would be an
improvement..
Specify "all" to receive mail on all network interfaces (default),
"loopback-o
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 07:01:03AM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Specify "all" to receive mail on all network interfaces (default),
> "loopback-only" to receive mail on loopback network interfaces only
> (Postfix version 2.2 and later) or leave blank to disable the reception
Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users:
> It was more a rhetorical question in the context of documentation
> improvement. Specifically, the documentation doesn't actually say what
> [blank] means. I think something like the following would be an
> improvement..
>
> Specify "all" to receive mail on a
Andrew Athan via Postfix-users:
> Thanks Viktor:
>
> > welcome to the internet
>
> Yeah :) I've been here for 30 years.
>
> > unlikely to be productive
>
> I simply want to help others avoid my points of confusion, in the belief I
> am not a uniquirely incapable or unintelligent reader.
>
> I
While Wietse has his word processor open, I'd like to share a few of my
greatest misdirects in my evolving understanding of Postfix.
To quote a like minded individual
I simply want to help others avoid my points of confusion, in the belief I
am not a uniquirely incapable or unintelligent reader
On 5/05/23 11:33, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
An empty inet_interfaces means that there is no constraint for the
SMTP client source IP address. I am adding some text for that.
I think the question is, what effect does it have on the server
listening address. This is from inet_liste
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:08:29PM +1200, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 5/05/23 11:33, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > An empty inet_interfaces means that there is no constraint for the
> > SMTP client source IP address. I am adding some text for that.
>
> I think the question is
This is rarely what you want. I'd be inclined to require that the
"inet_interfaces" parameter be non-empty (though it could still be
effectively empty as a list by setting it to be a mixture of spaces and
at least one comma).
You need to be careful what "empty" means. If inet_interfaces has o
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 01:57:19PM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > This is rarely what you want. I'd be inclined to require that the
> > "inet_interfaces" parameter be non-empty (though it could still be
> > effectively empty as a list by setting it to be a mixture of spaces a
That's a non-issue. With that, Postfix will only listen on IPv4 as
specified, when the "inet" endpoint only specifies the port.
That makes sense, and is exactly what I would expect, but it still needs
to be documented.
But it does raise another question in my mind. Many places in the
docu
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:34:53PM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> That makes sense, and is exactly what I would expect, but it still needs
> to be documented.
>
> But it does raise another question in my mind. Many places in the
> documentation state that the "Local" domain c
22 matches
Mail list logo
