Hello list,
Given the case that:
1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
When the primary MX for foo.com is down, messages to u...@foo.com will be
delivered into backup MX. And, backup MX delivers the message to
relay_host, which find that primary MX ca
reusing the private key for too long (say a year or more) is considered a bad
security practice. Imho it is easier to monitor changes of the issuing CA (I
do) or just mark your calendar to update in September 2025 than to pin 3 1 1.
Don´t want to be fundamental, just opinionated. Everyone has to
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
Given the case that:
1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
When the primary MX for foo.com is down, messages to u...@foo.com will be
delivered into backup MX. And, backup MX delivers the message
Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users writes:
> (...) just mark your calendar to update in September 2025 ...
Hellow Joachim! Thanks for remarkble tip ^^^
Sincerely, Byung-Hee
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe
On 2023-05-22 at 08:36:49 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 May 2023 14:36:49 +0200
(CEST))
Bernardo Reino via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
My world is only a very small subset of the real world :), but in that
world, if I say that a given server is the MX for a domain, then
that's that, it should
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:19PM +0800, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
> 1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
> 2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
This would be a misconfiguration. A backup MX host MUST NOT be an
effective null client that relays *all* non-local mail to a "smarth
On 22.05.23 20:26, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
Given the case that:
1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
When the primary MX for foo.com is down, messages to u...@foo.com will be
delivered into backup MX. And, backup MX delivers the message to
Tom Reed via Postfix-users:
> Hello list,
>
> Given the case that:
>
> 1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
> 2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
Please don't do that. By design a Postfix backup MX host will deliver
to an MX host with a 'better' MX preference. You are frustrating that
Thank you Victor, you are the embodiment of truth.
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:26:19PM +0800, Tom Reed via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> 1. postfix is a backup MX for foo.com
>> 2. this postfix uses other MTA as relay_host
>
> This would be a misconfiguration. A backup MX host MUST NOT be an
> ef
Hi,
>
> The BCC recipient is processed in much the same way as any other message
> recipient. The only special handling that comes to mind is DSN, where
> this recipient is treated as if NOTIFY=NEVER were specified.
>
> > local_transport = error:5.1.1 Mailbox unavailable
> > default_transport = s
>
> PS: Why do you (think you) need a backup MX?
Hello
I am not sure why I need a backup mx indeed, but if you make a simple dig,
you find gmail, fastmail, protonmail, comcast, free.fr those big providers
do have backup MXs.
Though yahoo, outlook don't have backup MX as a comparison.
regards
Tom Reed via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-23 01:53:
I am not sure why I need a backup mx indeed, but if you make a simple
dig,
you find gmail, fastmail, protonmail, comcast, free.fr those big
providers
do have backup MXs.
Though yahoo, outlook don't have backup MX as a comparison.
one mx
Hello.
It really depends on your mail volume and the reliability of your
primary MX hostname. Typically the RFC permits mail to be delayed for up
to 5 days at which mail will bounce back as undeliverable. For most
low-volume sites, a primary only MX configuration is fine.
Both of those domai
On 2023-05-22 at 19:53:11 UTC-0400 (Tue, 23 May 2023 07:53:11 +0800)
Tom Reed via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
PS: Why do you (think you) need a backup MX?
Hello
I am not sure why I need a backup mx indeed,
If you don't know why you want the added complexity, you do not want th
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:06:00PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> Yes, I wasn't aware that's how it worked. I've now explicitly defined the
> bcc-user to use the same transport, but the problem is that there is one
> bcc-user but multiple transports, each with their own policy.
This is where recipient_bcc_
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users
wrote:
> reusing the private key for too long (say a year or more) is
> considered a bad security practice. Imho it is easier to monitor
> changes of the issuing CA (I do) or just mark your calendar to update
> in Sept
Hello list,
sorry for the silly question.
does virtual domains (such as virtual_alias_domains) support wildcast?
such as putting this one in the file:
*.foo.com
so that one.foo.com, two.foo.com... will be a recipient domain.
Thanks.
--
sent from https://dkinbox.com/
_
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:56:41AM +0800, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
> Does virtual domains (such as virtual_alias_domains) support wildcard?
> such as putting this one in the file:
>
> *.foo.com
>
> so that one.foo.com, two.foo.com... will be a recipient domain.
You may think you want t
18 matches
Mail list logo
