rmat. With LDAP_SUCCESS and no results this new parameter would
be used as the result. Because there is no result value from the
LDAP-query the lower-case, upper-case and decimal digit expansions would
use the input key.
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Michael Storz
Am 2012-09-14 17:24, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Michael Storz:
If a new parameter no_result_format would exist, we could define the
ldap procedure with
result_format = DUNNO
no_result_format = 450 User not yet available in Exchange
which is very straightforward and understandable.
Except that
Am 2012-09-19 18:50, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Coming back to the original problem, if you don't want to reject
mail with "user unknown" when a user might still be in the process
of being created, how are you going to deal with really unknown
addresses, like a sender who mistyped something?
Am 2012-09-19 21:41, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 07:13:49PM +0200, Michael Storz wrote:
The consistency check requires that a user object is first
(correctly) defined in OpenLDAP. Only then the second check looks
for the correct definition in Active Directory. If it is not
Am 2012-09-19 22:27, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Michael Storz:
The consistency check requires that a user object is first
(correctly)
defined in OpenLDAP. Only then the second check looks for the
correct
definition in Active Directory. If it is not then we defer the email
(we
...
If a new user
Am 2012-09-24 19:06, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Michael Storz:
seems I was
not able to show the underlying problem, let me rephrase my problem:
How can I configure arbitrarily complex if-then-else
constructs
for every possible table type?
You will have to outsource that logic
Am 2012-09-27 23:38, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Victor discussed smtpd_relay_restrictions 6 years, see
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-05/0598.html.
The article also discussed a number of other ideas that have
potential
to increase the Postfix learning curve. I'll leave those f
Am 2012-09-28 14:44, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Michael Storz:
If one of the permit-restrictions from smtpd_relay_restrictions
fires
which restriction will be evaluated next:
- the first restriction of smtpd_recipient_restrictions or
- the first restriction of smtpd_data_restrictions
With
Am 2012-09-28 18:39, schrieb Noel Jones:
On 9/28/2012 8:37 AM, Michael Storz wrote:
Am 2012-09-28 14:44, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Michael Storz:
If smtpd_relay_restrictions behaves like all the other restriction
classes,
that means after the permit has fired, the first restriction of
Am 2012-10-11 13:36, schrieb Reindl Harald:
i do this via mysql and a daily php-script which is
removing error-transport if the domain get a MX record
which is NOT fakemx.net
currently the table has some thousand recors from the last 2 years
Do you populate the database manually or automatica
Am 2013-02-07 14:19, schrieb Noel Jones:
On 2/7/2013 6:14 AM, Marcio Merlone wrote:
it must be transparent, based on subject.
So, to work on incoming and outgoing mails regardless of rcpts it
has to be implemented on postifx. Can someone advice me on how can I
solve this?
Regardless of how yo
Am 2013-04-23 14:22, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: smtp_get: timeout
> Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: >
> dedi.ludosoft.org[127.0.0.1]: 421 4.4.2 dedi.ludosoft.org Error:
> timeout exceeded
> Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: match_hostname:
Am 2013-05-13 13:25, schrieb Timo Röhling:
Am 2013-05-13 13:12, schrieb LuKreme:
Other than disabling postscreen which I’m not going to do, is there
anything I can do to whitelist all the google.com domains?
Google recommends their SPF entries:
http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&hl
Am 2013-11-21 17:39, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:42:10PM +0100, Michael Storz wrote:
I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in
master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map.
There's your mistake. Set the nexthop fo
Am 2013-11-21 17:26, schrieb Manuel Bieling:
On 2013.11.21 16:42:10 +0100, Michael Storz wrote:
I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in
master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map.
Since smtp has no special command-line option for this I
I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in
master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map.
Since smtp has no special command-line option for this I suppose I have
to specify a generic Postfix daemon option via -o. However, since all
relevant command
Am 2014-04-23 13:39, schrieb Erik Logtenberg:
Hi,
If I request a (success) DSN from my Postfix server, my server
responds
as expected. Usually my mail server has to deliver the mail remotely
and
I would like Postfix to request a DSN from the remote server as well
if
the user asked for one. I
Am 2021-06-10 02:20, schrieb Russell Jones:
Hi all,
I have check_recipient_mx_access setup to route mail for certain
providers through a relay. This has been working well, until I
discovered it is breaking delivery to local users that get CC'd in an
email that is being routed through this relay.
Am 2021-06-10 20:57, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 04:30:11PM +0200, Michael Storz wrote:
The next possibility would be to split the email into emails with
recipients from the same domain. Unfortunately, Postfix (currently)
has
no way of configuring a relay host and
Am 2020-04-06 23:53, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> whose output you'd send to the attached Perl script. On my system for
> example:
>
> # bzip2 -dcf $(ls -tr /var/log/maillog*) | perl collate | perl tlstype.pl
I should perhaps
Am 2015-12-15 12:22, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org:
Michael Str?der:
Sebastian Nielsen wrote:
> Yes.
> Its just a draft.
Everything starts with a draft.
> Which certificate should the server use for the encrypted transaction, even if
> we use SNI?
> emailservice1.com or emailservice2.com?
The
Am 2015-12-11 20:33, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:50:40AM -0600, Brian Sebby wrote:
other.mail.server:smtp inetn - n - 0 smtpd
-o myhostname=other.mail.server
-o smtp_tls_cert_file=/path/to/certfile.pem
-o smtpd_t
Am 2015-12-15 15:48, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org:
Wietse:
This session has multiple recipients, in different domains that
have the same MX host. Whose SNI [domain] shall be used?
Michael Storz:
[Examples that do not use SNI]
Nice try, but that did not answer the question.
On the other
Am 2015-12-15 20:36, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 04:34:58PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
So, we've managed to hold off on offering SNI support for a decade
since TLS was integrated into Postfix 2.2. I just wanted to see
whether anyone still wanted it in Postfix, but perha
Am 2015-12-16 16:26, schrieb Alice Wonder:
But with port 25, certificate authorities do not matter, so an admin
running the same smtp server on multiple hostnames can generate a new
self-signed cert at no cost every time they add a domain that resolves
to that IP address.
Thus even with multipl
Am 2016-03-21 17:18, schrieb David Schweikert:
Hi,
I wonder what the Postfix community thinks or plans to do according to
this standard that is being written:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts/?include_text=1
I personally find this quite interesting. What I wonder is, if
Am 2016-03-21 20:09, schrieb Per Thorsheim:
Den 21.03.2016 18.47, skrev Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:18 PM, David Schweikert
wrote:
I wonder what the Postfix community thinks or plans to do according
to
this standard that is being written:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft
I do not understand the difference between verify and secure. If I
assign the same value to smtp_tls_verify_cert_match and
smtp_tls_secure_cert_match therefore not using the defualt values, is
there still a difference between verify and secure or are they doing the
same?
Michael
Am 2015-02-05 14:50, schrieb Микаел Бак:
Hi there,
On 02/04/2015 11:06 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
the truth is that a xx.xx.xx.xx-static-dsl.isp.tld is not a mailserver
just becaus eit contains the word "static" - in fact most of them are
ordinary office dsl lines with clients behind
True.
Am 2015-03-16 16:36, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30:00PM +0200, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
While running my mail server I noticed that couple mail servers on the
path
identify themselves as "HyperSendmail v2007.08"(mta??).
Anyone heard about such a software? What is this
Am 2015-03-18 18:49, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:31:40AM -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
Gmail does not restrict the from address in outgoing emails. In fact,
when
my server is offline, i send admin warnings via gmail that are ?from?
my
postmaster account.
Your gmail account is
Am 2024-01-30 23:56, schrieb Jonas Vautherin via Postfix-users:
...
Received: from mx5 ([15.102.1.34])
by compute1.internal (LMTPProxy); Fri, 05 Jan 2024 16:48:38 -0500
Received: from mx5.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACD7272
Am 2024-01-31 15:09, schrieb David Bürgin via Postfix-users:
Michael Storz:
FWS = ([*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP) / obs-FWS
A FWS can be a single WSP or a folded line.
Therefore the date "Fri, 5 Jan 2024 16:48:37 -0500 (EST)" is
syntactically incorrect, because there can b
33 matches
Mail list logo
