I have enabled the submission service in master.cf:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=$mua_cl
* Wietse Venema [140722 12:59]:
> sender_bcc_maps is not implemented by smtpd(8) but by cleanup(8).
> This is consistent with the information in the manpage.
Okay, now I see it in cleanup(8); I was looking in postconf(5) under
sender_bcc_maps.
> You can work around this with:
>
> /etc/postfix/m
* Marvin Renich [140722 13:12]:
> * Wietse Venema [140722 12:59]:
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > submission ...
> > -o cleanup_service=cleanup-outbound
> >
> > /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> > cleanup-outbound .. .. .. .. cleanup
> > -o s
* Wietse Venema [200119 08:04]:
> A radically different approach would be to introduce a new 'expired'
> queue and move messages there when they need to be expired, and to
> introduce a new postqueue flag to flush the expired queue (the queue
> manager should not normally scan the expired queue be
* Wietse Venema [200119 17:54]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > Postsuper isn't overflowing with options; perhaps a more flexible and
> > simpler design would be to have -e expire and -E expire and release from
> > hold (if it is held).
>
> Yes, the idea of a third option c
* Laura Smith [200524 16:00]:
> > I’ve been sort of opposed to greylisting in the past due to a
> > userbase that’s sensitive to delays, but… the spam is worse.
>
> IMHO Greylisting is rather pointless. Its a blunt tool, and not only
> that it does that unforgivable thing of annoying genuine peop
* PGNet Dev [200608 19:19]:
>https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/spamass-milt/
>https://github.com/mpaperno/spampd
>https://gitlab.com/glts/spamassassin-milter
>
> anyone have any current experience with any of these?
I also use the first one (Debian package spamass-milter) along wi
* Bill Cole [210504 15:12]:
> On 2021-05-04 at 14:55:29 UTC-0400 (Tue, 04 May 2021 14:55:29 -0400)
>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Using Linux, postfix, dovecot.
> >
> > For sorting incoming mail into different maildir folders, i know general
> > advice is to have postfix deliver to dovecot
I would like to use something like
virtual_mailbox_domains = domain1.org domain2.org
virtual_uid_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual_uids
virtual_transposrt = maildrop
with
maildrop unix - n n - - pipe
flags=DRhu user=vmail argv=/usr/bin/maildrop -d ${user_from_vir
* Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> not a login name.
>
> You'll need to implement any required lookups in a wrapper
> program around the underlying maildrop t
* Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> not a login name.
Why do virtual_uid_maps and virtual_gid_maps require a numeric uid/gid?
Allowing names is much more robus
* Wietse Venema [150801 15:52]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > * Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> > > Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> > > virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> > > not a login name.
[For clarity, I have re-added the remainder of my email that was snipped.]
* Wietse Venema [150801 16:58]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > Whether you have one real user for all virtual users or a setup with one
> > real user for each of many virtual domains, you must still have at least
&g
I'm having a new problem with ipv6. I'm running Debian (mostly testing
release) on my laptop, with Postfix running simply to allow mutt to send
when I don't have connectivity. The relevant postconf entries (full
postconf -n below):
inet_protocols = all (default; not specified in main.cf)
relay
* Wietse Venema [170322 13:14]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > First, why would the DNS query correctly give the ipv4 address on Mar
> > 10, but then fail saying it could not find an ipv6 entry on Mar 21? I
> > can find no configuration change or program version change that w
* Noel Jones [170322 14:38]:
> On 3/22/2017 1:08 PM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Thanks, Wietse and Noel. Once the IPv4 delivery fails for some reason,
> > and Postfix tries IPv6 (which must fail for this relayhost), the message
> > is deferred. Do subsequent redelivery a
* Bastian Blank [170322 15:09]:
> Moin
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:04:36PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Mar 21 14:42:45 basil postfix/smtp[12587]: 3AF35240229:
> > to=, relay=none, delay=0.47,
> > delays=0.25/0.22/0/0, dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domai
* Bastian Blank [170322 16:27]:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:11:19PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > At 12:30 I edited main.cf to add inet_protocols = ipv4, then restarted
> > Postfix. I did not reboot or restart any other services, or (knowingly)
> > clear any dns cache.
&
* an...@ursc.gov.in [191031 09:00]:
> > > We have migrated to a new domain yyy.com. We also continue to receive
> > > mails on old domain xxx.com.
> > >
> > > When a sender sends a mail to a...@xxx.com (old domain), mail is
> > > received and delivered to user abcd. Abcd when he replies to all
* Mal via Postfix-users [230310 03:23]:
>
>
> On 10/03/2023 5:24 pm, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I was also quite happy with
> > no tags at all.
>
> +1 no tags
I wholeheartedly agree. The subject tag hinders, rather than helps,
reading list mail. The List-Id provides better
* Cooper, Robert A via Postfix-users [230310 09:59]:
> I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to
> have gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like
> list prefixes. It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that
> may or may not be present from an
* Matthias Andree via Postfix-users [230311 10:48]:
> Am 10.03.23 um 17:12 schrieb Marvin Renich via Postfix-users:
> > Additionally, every MUA that I know of recognizes a subject beginning
> > with "Re:" or "RE:" and when replying avoids duplicating this in th
* Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users [230315 11:11]:
> On 3/15/23 10:36, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users wrote:
> > That technical issue aside, in this thread there have been two posters
> > who expressed a desire to keep the tags, one said get rid of it in
> > users, but k
* Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users [230815 05:10]:
> Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-08-15 10:44:
>
> > This is a bad idea for several reasons. If you want submission use
> > ports 465 and/or 587 as they are intended. Don't try to use a service
> > that is meant for a different purpose f
Many thanks, Scott, for keeping the official Debian postfix packages
up-to-date. It is very much appreciated by me and, I am sure, by many
others.
...Marvin
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pos
* Peter via Postfix-users [240117 04:57]:
> On 16/01/24 17:26, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> same work? At any rate, it's really up to someone in the Debian community
> to step up and do that, and I'm not trying to volunteer you for the job, it
Scott is an official Debian Develop
tandard, that is even more so
> a pity today with that current "x via y" rewriting that places the
> original poster in Reply-To:, and for you in particular this is
>
> Reply-To: postfix-users@postfix.org, Marvin Renich
>
> Manual work in my side beyond that question
* 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-
* 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 [241016 20:10]:
> Package maintainers are usually split into two different approaches:
>
> - a) Some built containers directly from *their* source, only using the
> inside distribution as a help to build their own binaries.
>
> advantages:
> - always
[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list etiquette.]
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [241017 09:31]:
>
> Marvin,
>
> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
> > [...]
> >> - Rerun a docker build & docker push as soon as the unde
* Randy Bush via Postfix-users [241120 23:52]:
> Debian 12
> mail_version = 3.7.11
> unbound
>
> note third line "hostname mon1.rg.met does not resolve to address
> 2001:418:1::35:"
>
> 2024-11-20T18:41:31.875723+00:00 m0 postfix/postscreen[24315]: CONNECT
> from [2001:418:1::35]:51410 to
* Thomas Landauer via Postfix-users [241126 11:43]:
> * At https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_tls_security_level and
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_tls_security_level
> Sorry, but the text doesn't say what "empty" means. Is this the same as
> "none" or not?
The man page
* Bill Cole via Postfix-users [250430 09:23]:
> As a full "Message Transport Agent" (MTA) handling initial mail submission,
Message Transfer Agent
See e.g. RFC 6409 and RFC 5598.
...Marvin
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
* Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users [250430 10:25]:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > * Bill Cole via Postfix-users [250430 09:23]:
> > > As a full "Message Transport Agent" (MTA) handling
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users [250513
10:08]:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
> > > These should not be used globally but only at submission level.
> > >
> > > This can be achieved by using separate postfix instance for submitted mail
> > > - I don't see possibility of
* Matthew Kitchin via Postfix-users [250522 12:12]:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:46 AM Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > How can I help? The purpose of my request is to find out if the
> > unexpected display name change happens before Postfix receives the
> > message, while Postfix processes the messa
* Marvin Renich via Postfix-users [250522 14:47]:
> If I am not mistaken, the static: returns f...@example.com for _all_
> queries, as opposed to returning "" for queries matching
> f...@example.com. This would explain the behavior you are seeing.
>
> Try using
>
&g
* Matthew Kitchin via Postfix-users [250522 13:04]:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 11:58 AM Marvin Renich via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> >
> > What is «postconf sender_canonical_maps»? Is it
> >
> > sender_canonical_maps = f...@example.com
> >
>
39 matches
Mail list logo
