On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:51:51 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > What's the alternative for masquerade_domains ?
>
> It is canonical_maps, ideally with explicit mappings for each expected
>
> On 14. Feb 2024, at 09:23, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> Of course it is best dealt with at the source by configuring the
>> client systems to use the correct domain.
>
>
> Perhaps, but not all client systems are under our control (trusted but not
> necessarily cooperativ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:21:10AM -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > I use fail2ban as well. I'm just going to see if the sender sever
> > will give
> > up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 10:51 -0500, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Good info.
> >
> > This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for
> > it.
> > I tried just rejec
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With firewall
rules there's not sufficient forensic evidence left behind.
On 14.02.24 19:11, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote:
Here's a tip - try the 'LOG' tar
On 2/14/24 4:18 AM, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote:
On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 10:51 -0500, Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On 2/7/24 10:41, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
>> Good info.
>>
>> This site sends nothing but junk. IN fact the domain is known for
>> it.
>> I tried jus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 11:34 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-
users wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> > > I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With
> > > firewall
>
Jakob Cornell via Postfix-users:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> > I can add a debug log that a specific table is skipped for a specific name.
>
> Ah yes, that's a better fix. That would take care of my confusion with the
> logging.
>
> Do you have any thoughts on postconf(5) describing partial key
> lookups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 07:52 -0500, John Hill via Postfix-users wrote:
> I used an access list to redirect all email from them to a spam
> folder.
Elegant solution, of this I approve.
> Turns out I was asked to block the emails users had subscribed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 18:32 +0100, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32 -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-
> users wrote:
> > - masquerade_domains complicates table-driven address validation.
> > Log a deprecatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 22:31 +0530, Akshay Pushparaj via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I would like to know if i can configure postfix to forward mails if
> user not found in local recipient table.
>
> Usecase:
>
> Users are split between LDAP in my server
On 2/14/24 8:07 AM, Nikolai Lusan via Postfix-users wrote:
On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 11:34 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-
users wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 12:15 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>> I prefer to have logs that record what I'm blocking. With
>>> firew
Having 12x that text in the postconf masnpage would not help.
Certainly not, but I think there's a good middle ground. A more practical
change would just make brief reference to the distinction. For example:
check_recipient_access type:table
Search the specified access(5) database for the
13 matches
Mail list logo
