* 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
* 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
* 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
> >
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
