On 2024-10-18 at 05:58:16 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:58:16 +0200)
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [18/10/2024 10:55] :
- Others might start using my postfix container due to the lack of an
official postfix container [2]
Th
Hi,
We have a problem with one of our inbound MX's amavisd gave up the goat,
and is fataling, since in itself is not a problem as we kill postfix and
the load blancers exclude the machine, the problem is amavisd's weird fatal
errors sare proving a nasty one, and the mailq shows 200 messages in its
On October 18, 2024 3:17:04 PM UTC, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users
wrote:
>* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]:
>> The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
>> workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
>
>"From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe).
Nico Schottelius:
> > That is NOT an official image. The web page even has a very clear
> > disclaimer:
> >
> > Note that these images come with absolutely no warranty or support.
> >
> > In other words, don't use these images for mission-critical applications,
> > such as providing an email se
On 2024-10-18 at 08:34:54 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:34:54 +1000)
Laura Steynes via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
We have a problem with one of our inbound MX's amavisd gave up the
goat,
and is fataling, since in itself is not a problem as we kill postfix
and
the load blancers
Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users:
>
> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
> > [...]
> > Do you expect the postfix devs to release containers for every popular
> > combination of distribution and containerization technology (Docker,
> > kubernetes, LXC, OpenVZ, etc.)? Even picking one distr
On October 18, 2024 2:34:54 PM GMT+02:00, Laura Steynes via Postfix-users
wrote:
>Hi,
>We have a problem with one of our inbound MX's amavisd gave up the goat,
>and is fataling, since in itself is not a problem as we kill postfix and
>the load blancers exclude the machine, the problem is amavi
* Steffen Nurpmeso via Postfix-users [241017 14:23]:
> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
> :
> |[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list \
> |etiquette.]
>
> How about adding a Mail-Followup-To: header then?
> Even though it never became a standard, that is even mor
* Nico Schottelius [18/10/2024 20:39] :
>
> In the best case scenario you get one
> hit with a lot of favorites/stars/whatever and an indication that the
> image is official. That means as a user it is trustworthy and you can
> run your workload with it.
The fact t
Hey Emmanuel,
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users writes:
> * Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [18/10/2024 10:55] :
>>
>> - Others might start using my postfix container due to the lack of an
>> official postfix container [2]
>> - To avoid that, my recommendation is that the postfix project p
Hello Viktor,
This works perfectly, thank you!
-o { smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access static:{REDIRECT
d...@test.ca} }
But this one :
-o { smtpd_command_filter = pcre:{ {/^(MAIL FROM):/
$1: } } }
seems to block my attempt to test with telnet
[root@appsjava
The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
* Nico Schottelius:
> It's the opposite and let me put it into clear, logic terms:
Oh, do try. ;-)
> I need a postfix container [0]
> I can easily build a postfix container [1]
> Others might start using my postfix container due to the lack of an
> official postfix container [2]
If (!) you publ
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-10-18 18:32:
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html
why do maillist at first need to have Reply-To: at all ?
too late to get Majordomo back ? :=)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majord
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xvshz0yglzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
|workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
I promote the Author: of RFC 9057 shall a time of sanity be
reached (again .. maybe) in the future
Etienne Gladu via Postfix-users:
> Hello Viktor,
>
> This works perfectly, thank you!
>-o { smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access static:{REDIRECT
> d...@test.ca} }
>
> But this one :
> -o { smtpd_command_filter = pcre:{ {/^(MAIL FROM):/
> $1: } } }
>
> seems to
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024, at 09:31, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> I suspect that this thread has already taken more time & effort than it would
> take for one sysadmin with k8s expertise to build a working Postfix container
> for their own use. I'm sure that it has taken more time than just
Marvin Renich via Postfix-users:
> * Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]:
> > The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
> > workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
>
> "From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe). But I don't think Reply-To
> affects SPF
* Marvin Renich via Postfix-users [241018 08:14]:
> My apologies! I had explicitly set Reply-To, and expected the mailing
> list software to _not_ replace it.
Okay, it seems that the list software _adds_ the original sender to the
existing Reply-To header. So if I don't set Reply-To, it just ha
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote in
<4xvs4j0h5qzj...@spike.porcupine.org>:
|Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users:
|> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
|>> [...]
|>> Do you expect the postfix devs to release containers for every popular
|>> combination of distribution and containeriz
* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]:
> The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
> workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
"From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe). But I don't think Reply-To
affects SPF at all, and only DKIM if the Reply-To header
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [18/10/2024 10:55] :
>
> - Others might start using my postfix container due to the lack of an
> official postfix container [2]
> - To avoid that, my recommendation is that the postfix project provides a
> container itself
This is the part I don't get. Why i
22 matches
Mail list logo
