(apologies if i'm reposting this. i forget i hadn't resubscribed before
sending initially)
hi-
i'm having some trouble using ldaps in a lookup map for
virtual_mailbox_domains (among others).
here's my lookup map:
>cat virtual_mailbox_domains.cf
version = 3
tls_ca_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:50:12AM -0400, btb wrote:
cat virtual_mailbox_domains.cf
version = 3
tls_ca_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt
server_host = ldaps://ldap.example.com
bind_dn = cn=postfix,ou=services,ou=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
bind_pw
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:12:12PM -0400, btb wrote:
testing with postmap returns:
postmap -q 'example.com' ldap:./virtual_mailbox_domains.cf
postmap: warning: dict_ldap_set_tls_options: Unable to allocate new TLS
context -1: Can't contact LDAP server
i've been experimenting with delivery for the virtual domain class to dovecot
via lmtp - e.g.
>postconf virtual_transport
virtual_transport = lmtp:[localhost]:lmtp-deliver
this works fine.
out of curiosity, i wondered if the particulars could be somehow moved into a
service definition in maste
On Mar 13, 2012, at 17.01, mouss wrote:
> Le 13/03/2012 19:07, b...@bitrate.net a écrit :
>> i've been experimenting with delivery for the virtual domain class to
>> dovecot via lmtp - e.g.
>>
>>> postconf virtual_transport
>> virtual_transport = lmtp:[localhost]:lmtp-deliver
>>
>> this works f
On 2012.03.19 02.34, mouss wrote:
Le 14/03/2012 03:53, b...@bitrate.net a écrit :
On Mar 13, 2012, at 17.01, mouss wrote:
Le 13/03/2012 19:07, b...@bitrate.net a écrit :
i've been experimenting with delivery for the virtual domain
class to dovecot via lmtp - e.g.
postconf virtual_transport
On Apr 01, 2012, at 11.38, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> We only want to install postfix as a null client for sending alerts from our
> servers. When I try to install postfix, it wants to install
> mysql-libs-5.1.61-1.el6_2.1 as well. I'm afraid this will break our mysql
> servers, which are all runn
On Apr 01, 2012, at 11.58, Robinson, Eric wrote:
>> you could always just not install postfix, since installing
>> an entire mail server isn't at all necessary to simply send
>> email. i would recommend null client specific software, such
>> as msmtp, instead. among other things, it would li
hi-
i recently started using lmtp to deliver to dovecot for filesystem delivery.
previous to that change, i'd used virtual(8), and thus was using
virtual_mailbox_domains/maps, and virtual_alias_maps as well. shortly after
switching, it occurred to me that since postfix was no longer involved
On 2012.04.09 23.32, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:21:05PM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
Given my understanding of address classes, it seemed that in order to use
virtual_alias_maps, those related domains would need to be listed in
virtual_alias_domains.
This assumption i
On 2012.04.10 08.32, Wietse Venema wrote:
so the relationship between virtual_alias_maps/virtual_alias_domains is
not quite the same as the relationship between
virtual_mailbox_maps/virtual_mailbox_domains or
relay_recipients/relay_domains?
This is documented in virtual(5).
thanks for the cla
On Apr 10, 2012, at 10.44, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> + * Note: virtual_alias_maps will be used with other address classes unless
>> +a given domain is listed in virtual_alias_domains. see the section on
>
> To me, this confuses things more. virtual_alias_maps will be
> consulted (and its results
On Apr 11, 2012, at 07.06, Wietse Venema wrote:
> No. virtual_alias_maps is ALWAYS consulted, without any "unless"
> conditions.
>
> Wietser
urg, yes, thank you for the patient reminder. i think my approach may have
been backwards with respect to my goal. this patch hopefully better ref
On Apr 14, 2012, at 13.19, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This proposes to add text under VIRTUAL ALIAS domains, that is
> "important" for people who are looking for documentation about
> LOCAL/VIRTUAL MAILBOX/RELAY domains. They will never find it.
>
> Wietse
maybe as a note for address classes in
On Apr 14, 2012, at 15.55, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The alternatives that I see are
>
> a) Spam every address class description with text that virtual alias
> mappings are class-agnostic. Then we would also have to mention
> canonical_maps,and other class-agnostic mechanisms.
on one hand, this mi
postmap appears to fold to lowercase by default for ldap queries:
>postmap -vq '86:A5:5C:85:A3:98:2E:19:7A:54:57:99:76:9D:D5:A3:7E:46:85:C5'
>ldap:./ccert_access-test.cf
postmap: name_mask: ipv4
[...]
postmap: dict_ldap_lookup: ./ccert_access-test.cf: Searching with filter
(&(objectclass=mailse
On Apr 26, 2012, at 18.47, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>postmap appears to fold to lowercase by default for ldap queries:
>
>That is documented under the -f option.
am i misunderstanding the last paragraph under "input file format"? the
postmap documentation seems to state that case folding happens b
On Apr 26, 2012, at 19.59, Wietse Venema wrote:
> When the table is provided via other means such as NIS, LDAP or SQL,
> the same lookups are done as for ordinary indexed files.
ok, thanks for the clarification. the impetus for this question - i was
setting up check_ccert_access to use
On Apr 27, 2012, at 11.43, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Your LDAP schema should specify certfingerprint as a case-insensitive
> attribute. This is a hexadecimal number (with some ":" characters
> thrown in for readability), and the case of A-F is insignificant.
copied/pasted from my previous message-
hi-
i have an mx which then subsequently delivers incoming mail from the internet
to another computer [ via relay_transport =
relay-mda:[mda.example.com]:smtp-relay ] for further processing. while
performing some maintenance on mda.example.com, i'd like to configure postfix
on the mx to accep
On Oct 28, 2012, at 12.47, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't want to send emails directly from my server. (I'm going to
> connect from a client.)
>
> I have the following settings in "main.cf":
>
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_sasl_authenticate
On Jan 24, 2013, at 01.08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 2:23 PM, Grant wrote:
I thought my postfix setup was configured to send mail on port 587 and
receive mail on port 25, so I was surprised to find that I could send
mail from the local machine on port 25. Is my config OK
On Jan 24, 2013, at 22.57, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> commendably, he is at least making an attempt to properly use submission
>> [which, btw, is far from "useless" and has nothing to do with the route a
>> packet might take].
>
> The primary features of the submission service are TLS encryption a
On Jan 25, 2013, at 13.29, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 10:18 AM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 22.57, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> The primary features of the submission service are TLS encryption and
>>> authentication.
>>
>> the primary feature of the submission service
On Jan 25, 2013, at 15.07, Jeff Bernier wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am currently running Mailman (2.1.14) and Postfix (2.4.3) on an aging Mac
> OS X server (10.5.8). Mailman and Postfix on this system are Apple's
> implementation on their platform of course. Apple no longer supports the
> Xserve pl
On Jan 30, 2013, at 09.34, Peter von Nostrand wrote:
> dovecot unix - n n - - pipe
> flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda -f
> ${sender} -d ${recipient}
i'd encourage you to consider delivering to dovecot via lmtp[1] rather than
pipe, and thus to consider using the
On 2013.02.04 13.27, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
http://www.emailsecuritygrader.com
as with most "helpful" websites like this, this one is perpetuating
misinformation. smtps has long since been deprecated, having been
superseded by starttls. it also would appear to perpetuate the behavior
of o
On Feb 26, 2013, at 11.51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic
>> from my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of these
>> names are frequent requests, for e
On Apr 9, 2013, at 19.56, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I'm trying to fix my virtual domain configuration with postfix, which as
> noted in a prior discussion was done incorrectly by some unknown to me person
> in the past.
>
> The main issue right now is that it has:
>
> virtual_transport = e
On Apr 11, 2013, at 20.11, LuKreme wrote:
> Reindl Harald opined on Thursday 11-Apr-2013@16:58:28
>> mynetworks should be genrally used with care and only for specific
>> address instead whole networks with sooner or later potentially
>> infected clients which can be banned if using auth even if
On 2013.04.12 07.01, LuKreme wrote:
In our previous episode (Thursday, 11-Apr-2013), b...@bitrate.net
said:
you can certainly upgrade without breaking everything. as with
anything else, it just takes some care and consideration. as far
as procmail goes, i'd consider losing procmail to be a ben
On Apr 12, 2013, at 15.25, Joan Moreau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am stuck with making my SSL SMTPS (port 465) works, while it was working
> fine since ever.
others have helped with the specifics of your question, so i'll address the
philosophical aspect of it :) . while it may take some coordinati
On Apr 13, 2013, at 15.33, Russell Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Upgrading mail server from Postfix 2.9 to 2.10. Could I get a quick sanity
> check to ensure my (fairly simple) setup is sane with the new
> smtpd_relay_restrictions? Thanks :-)
>
> smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks
On Apr 13, 2013, at 15.48, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 13.04.2013 21:42, schrieb b...@bitrate.net:
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 15.33, Russell Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Upgrading mail server from Postfix 2.9 to 2.10. Could I get a quick sanity
>>> check to ensure my (fairly simple)
On Apr 13, 2013, at 16.03, Russell Jones wrote:
> > really, neither of permit_mynetworks nor permit_sasl_authenticated belong
> > in any global restrictions.
> smtp auth [e.g sasl] is for submission clients, which should be using
> submission/587, and these days,
>
>
> This is contrary to w
On Apr 13, 2013, at 16.40, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> that your "discourage use of permit_mynetworks" is far from reality as
> also "do not use SASAL and submission on port 25" as well if someone
> asks for ANOTHER sanity check after upgrade to a new version?
i'm not sure why it seems to be so ha
On Apr 13, 2013, at 17.10, Russell Jones wrote:
>
> On 4/13/2013 3:44 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>> you offer no service whatsoever on port 25? postfix is not listening on
>> that port? if that's truly the case, then, to be pedantic, you're running
>> an msa, not an mta, in which case you
On 2013.04.22 13.35, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
This started showing up sporadically in our logs after upgrading to
postfix 2.10:
Apr 22 14:42:50 zqa-061 postfix/trivial-rewrite[30487]: warning: do
not list domain zqa-061.eng.vmware.com in BOTH mydestination and
virtual_mailbox_domains
However,
the postfix website seems to be acting unexpectedly. http://www.postfix.org/
appears to have been replaced with what was previously
http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html [and an old version?] rather than
what [iirc] it used to be - http://www.postfix.org/start.html
i thought i'd mention it
On 2013.06.20 04.51, Felix Rubio Dalmau wrote:
Hi all,
I have set up a postfix+dovecot+roundcube installation. Currently, I
have
set up these smtpd parameters:
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes
smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps = has
On Jun 21, 2013, at 03.50, Felix Rubio Dalmau
wrote:
> Sorry for disturbing you, Ben
>
> Thank you for your answer, but there is one point I don't fully get: If
> I
> set up an smtp [25] to offer encryption without auth, a submission [587] to
> require encryption and auth, and I want r
On Jul 3, 2013, at 16.31, Dejan Doder wrote:
> Hi group ,
> sorry because I have general question
> Did anyone have experience with integration posfix and ejabberd ?
integration how? what is your goal?
On Jul 4, 2013, at 20.44, W T Riker wrote:
> On 7/4/2013 8:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> W T Riker:
>>> On 7/4/2013 8:01 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
gw1500:
> It is not clear from the documentation if this is possible or how to do
> it but I want to make authentication optional but if
On 2013.07.08 08.25, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Form googling I found this "solution" online but it does not work as I
expected.
instead of googling, simply use the postfix documentation that came with
the software. your goal is accomplished by implementing smtp auth,
which postfix offers by way of
On Jul 9, 2013, at 21.56, Fred Zinsli wrote:
> This is something I hadn't considered at all.
> In order for me to better understand the consequences of my actions are
> you able to explain to me why that is the case, and what situation would
> need to arise for that to happen. Or simply point me
On Jul 21, 2013, at 21.55, Adnane wrote:
> Hello every one
>
> first I'am new to mail servers,
>
> I have followed this tutorial -->
> https://library.linode.com/email/postfix/postfix2.9.6-dovecot2.0.19-mysql?format=print
> to set up
> an Ubuntu 12.04 Dovecot postfix mail box for a subdomain
On 2013.08.06 15.34, John Allen wrote:
Is there a more up to date guide that I could reference as I review my
existing setup.
it's unlikely you'll get much endorsement here of arbitrary howtos or
guides. instead, i'd encourage you to simply share your config
[postconf -nf; postconf -Mf], and
On Aug 16, 2013, at 01.56, Rob Tanner wrote:
> What is it, besides adding the correct the DNS TXT records
as there is a formal dns rr type for spf defined in rfc4408, you'll of course
want to include that as well.
-ben
On Aug 16, 2013, at 15.06, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I wouldn't bother. It has only very limited deployment and is proposed for
> removal in the revision to RFC 4408 that is about to enter IETF last call.
interesting. thank you for calling attention to this.
-ben
On 2013.08.20 10.23, Charles Marcus wrote:
for me at least...
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.postfix.org
On 2013.08.27 00.32, LuKreme wrote:
That seem like a bit much. I allow the web-server (which hosts the
webmail) in mynetworks, since users mailing from there are already
authenticated. I can see there are situations where it would be a
good idea.
web mail users should perform proper smtp authe
On 2013.09.04 09.29, Przemysław Orzechowski wrote:> Hi
>
> Im trying to get cbpolicyd to be applied only to outgoing mail (Postfix
> vresion 2.7.0)
you don't apply it to outgoing mail. you apply it to incoming mail [this is
why the terms "incoming" and "outgoing" are typically best avoided]
>
On Oct 3, 2013, at 06.30, Mark Goodge wrote:
> I know I could solve the problem by using authentication, but a lot of the
> outbound email is generated by cron scripts on a server inside the network,
> and rewriting all of them to authenticate when sending mail is likely to be
> considerably m
i have a scenario in which certain email is sent using envelope senders
that contain host names that are known only on the local lan/network,
and unknown on the internet. most mail expressing that characteristic
stays local, but occasionally, some is legitimately destined for the
public intern
On 2013.10.21 17.54, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 3:53 PM, btb wrote:
>> i have a scenario in which certain email is sent using envelope
>> senders that contain host names that are known only on the local
>> lan/network, and unknown on the internet. most
this stems from another discussion
[http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2013-10/0454.html].
i'm currently doing:
transport_maps = hash:$table_directory/transports
>cat transports
example.com example-internal:
foo.example.com smtp:
.example.com
On 2013.10.22 09.56, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/22/2013 8:41 AM, btb wrote:
On 2013.10.21 17.54, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/21/2013 3:53 PM, btb wrote:
i have a scenario in which certain email is sent using envelope
senders that contain host names that are known only on the local
lan/network, and
On 2014.01.22 11.41, Chris Richards wrote:
Basically, I need to find out which users are connecting to port 25
instead of 587.
man 5 postconf. see syslog_name. also see the sample config which
comes with the software. this includes a submission config which uses
syslog_name
-ben
On Feb 15, 2014, at 23.14, SH Development wrote:
> Feb 15 21:12:36 mail postfix/pipe[23969]: 931AF2F4F36:
> to=,
> orig_to=, relay=cyrus, delay=0, status=sent
you’ve configured postfix to pass mail to cyrus for delivery [relay=cyrus].
postfix has done so [status=sent]. postfix cannot contro
On Feb 15, 2014, at 23.14, SH Development wrote:
> Feb 15 21:12:36 mail postfix/pipe[23969]: 931AF2F4F36:
> to=,
> orig_to=, relay=cyrus, delay=0, status=sent
you’ve configured postfix to pass mail to cyrus for delivery [relay=cyrus].
postfix has done so [status=sent]. postfix cannot contro
i have an msa, which requires encryption and smtp auth, save one sole
exception - a client which [for now] cannot perform either, that i must
explicitly trust based only on source ip address. to that end, i've
allowed it to perform submission with check_client_access, but i'm left
at odds with
hi-
when message_size_limit is exceeded, i see the following logs:
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: CONNECT from
[173.201.193.182]:45771 to [10.3.70.5]:25
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: PASS OLD [173.201.193.182]:45771
Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/smtpd[7066]: connect
On Jun 24, 2014, at 19.35, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: CONNECT from
>> [173.201.193.182]:45771 to [10.3.70.5]:25
>> Jun 24 11:20:21 mta postfix/postscreen[5758]: PASS OLD
>> [173.201.193.182]:45771
>> Jun 2
we use recipient address verification amongst some of our own domains. on
occasion, i see the following log entries:
Jul 6 08:26:22 msa-aux postfix/smsp/smtpd[2545]: connect from
client.example.com[10.48.40.102]
Jul 6 08:26:22 msa-aux postfix/smsp/smtpd[2545]: Anonymous TLS connection
establ
On 2014.07.07 12.25, btb wrote:
we use recipient address verification amongst some of our own domains. on
occasion, i see the following log entries:
Jul 6 08:26:22 msa-aux postfix/smsp/smtpd[2545]: connect from
client.example.com[10.48.40.102]
Jul 6 08:26:22 msa-aux postfix/smsp/smtpd[2545
On 2014.07.07 12.39, Wietse Venema wrote:
Find out why it takes 6.2 seconds to connect over TCP and to
complete the SMTP handshake with the remote SMTP server.
given postscreen_greet_wait, it's a coincidence that the remote server's
postscreen logs show that same delay ~6 second delay, but lis
with respect to my previous question about address verification, i think
i'm not understanding address_verify_poll_delay correctly. while
working on troubleshooting the 6.2 second delay during the smtp
handshake, i'd set address_verify_poll_delay to 15 seconds, expecting
that postfix would the
On Jul 9, 2014, at 18.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> with respect to my previous question about address verification, i think
>> i'm not understanding address_verify_poll_delay correctly. while
>> working on troubleshooting the 6.2 second delay during the s
On Jul 9, 2014, at 19.35, Wietse Venema wrote:
> address_verify_poll_delay (default: 3s)
> The DELAY BETWEEN QUERIES for the completion of an address verification
> request in progress.
>
> This specifies the delay betweem the $address_verify_poll_count
> queries for one address verification
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 02.53, Vicki Brown wrote:
>
> [...] discards email to non-existent recipient addresses [...]
on a side note, don't accept mail and then discard it. instead, reject it.
-ben
hi-
i've become accustomed to seeing log passages like this:
>grep -iF '[142.4.19.85]:52366' mail.log
Dec 16 09:41:09 mta1 postfix/postscreen[27678]: CONNECT from
[142.4.19.85]:52366 to [10.3.70.6]:25
Dec 16 09:41:15 mta1 postfix/postscreen[27678]: DNSBL rank 5 for
[142.4.19.85]:52366
Dec 16 0
On 2015.12.16 11.35, Wietse Venema wrote:
The client was not listed at some DNSBL
this explains it, thanks. i don't know why, but i was expecting
postscreen to tell me that the client was not listed. i now see in the
docs that it's only logged if postscreen_dnsbl_threshold is met.
-ben
On 2016.01.26 10.54, Matt Bayliss wrote:
I'm trying to find the correct/best practice method for setting up a
black hole email address for such items as "noreply" addresses when
sending alerts from monitoring devices etc.
if you intend no mail to be sent to this address anyway, and will just
t
> On Jan 26, 2016, at 15.52, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, btb wrote:
> On 2016.01.26 10.54, Matt Bayliss wrote:
> I'm trying to find the correct/best practice method for setting up a
> black hole email address for such items as "norep
On Mar 18, 2016, at 07.20, Istvan Prosinger wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone!
>
> I need to insert something like
>
> X-MY-ID-some-unique-ID
>
> into each email's header for local tracking purposes.
>
> The unique ID doesn't have to be some complicated hash, it can be something
> like the + or ...
On 2016.09.28 12.35, KSB wrote:
On 2016.09.28. 18:03, KSB wrote:
Hi!
I would like to use smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes at least for submission
port, but we have rare customers who have old scannners which don't
support SSL/TLS(as they say).
for this, i use the following:
table_directory = ${config_
On Nov 03, 2016, at 14.12, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>
> I found a way to test the expansion of normal .db maps:
>
> postmap -q testuser 'postconf -h virtual_alias_maps'
>
> however, it doesn't seem to work with LDAP maps. Is there a way to test those
> as well?
it's worked as documented for me,
hi-
i have an "appliance" which submits mail. it's inflexible,
unfortunately, and uses crappy values for the envelope sender and the
from: header. i have communicated with the vendor in an attempt to
rectify this, but as might be expected, the outcome has been less than
successful.
hopefully so
On Nov 10, 2016, at 17.17, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2016 4:05 PM, btb wrote:
>> hi-
>>
>> i have an "appliance" which submits mail. it's inflexible,
>> unfortunately, and uses crappy values for the envelope sender and the
>> from:
> On Nov 11, 2016, at 10.34, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2016 6:00 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 17.17, Noel Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2016 4:05 PM, btb wrote:
>>>> hi-
>>>>
>>>> i have an &quo
by chance, i happened to create a parameter which used a dash in the
name, and was referencing it in another parameter, e.g.:
foo-param = foo
bar_param = ${foo-param}
upon restart, postfix complained about this:
postconf: warning: macro name syntax error: "foo-param"
postconf: fatal: macro proce
On 2016.11.14 20.04, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> by chance, i happened to create a parameter which used a dash in the
>> name, and was referencing it in another parameter, e.g.:
>>
>> foo-param = foo
>> bar_param = ${foo-param}
>>
>> upon restart,
in the postconf(5) documentation, the format section says:
The expressions "${name:value}" and "${name?{value}}" are replaced with
"value" when "$name" is empty. These forms are supported with Postfix
versions ≥ 2.2 and ≥ 3.0, respectively.
should the ? in "${name?{value}}" be a :?
-ben
On 2016.11.15 11.32, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> in the postconf(5) documentation, the format section says:
>>
>> The expressions "${name:value}" and "${name?{value}}" are replaced
>> with "value" when "$name" is empty.
On 2016.11.15 11.44, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> since parameters can be user defined, i think it would be good if
>> the documentation stated this, maybe in postconf(5)? it would
>> alleviate guessing games.
>>
>> possibly something like:
>>
>>
On Nov 27, 2016, at 16.15, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
>
> I hate to bug the list for what is probably a dumb question, but is there any
> situation where an unauthorized user needs to connect to port 587? I'm
> wondering if there is some oddball "edge" case.
well, i suppose it would depend up
On 2016.11.28 06.53, mailing lists wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am configurating envelope sender address authorization using ldap
> tables with Active Directory which has two possible attributes to
> authenticate users, the legacy and short name "samaccountname" and
> the long name "userprincipalna
On 2016.11.27 20.43, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I should have mentioned the mail system is on a VPS and I'm the only
> user. And yes, trouble makers are on the Internet.
well, this simplifies things quite of bit, of course.
> What lead me to this was I did bzgrep "max auth" and noticed both
>
On 2016.11.28 13.47, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:01:41 -0500 btb wrote:
>
>> On 2016.11.27 20.43, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
>>> I should have mentioned the mail system is on a VPS and I'm the
>>> only user. And yes, trouble makers are
On Dec 12, 2016, at 13.03, Stavros Tsolakos wrote:
>
> Dear list
>
> My apologies if my question has been answered before.
>
> I want to relay outgoing messages depending on the sender. So far I have
> created 2 tables containing the SMTP relay addresses and the passwords
> respectively.
>
> F
hi-
if i'm interpreting correctly, the documentation for cleanup(8) says
that (Resent-) From:, To:, Message-Id:, and Date: headers are always
inserted:
The cleanup(8) daemon always performs the following transformations:
· Insert missing message headers: (Resent-) From:, To:, Message-Id:,
On Aug 27, 2014, at 19.36, Wietse Venema wrote:
> btb:
>> hi-
>>
>> if i'm interpreting correctly, the documentation for cleanup(8) says
>> that (Resent-) From:, To:, Message-Id:, and Date: headers are always
>> inserted:
>
> This is enab
hi-
i have a mail submission server [submission/587 only] [msa.example.com]
for our users [config below]. in that context, it's working as desired.
we also have another, separate, msa [msa.systems.example.com], which
servers and other infrastructure devices use for submitting mail. how
can
On 2014.09.10 14.02, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> btb:
>> hi-
>>
>> i have a mail submission server [submission/587 only] [msa.example.com]
>> for our users [config below]. in that context, it's working as desired.
>>
hi-
i'm not quite certain the subject is an accurate synopsis. apologies if it's
misleading. we have a proprietary system which delivers voicemail messages as
email attachments. it submits mail via submission to postfix, which looks like
this:
Sep 18 16:03:33 msa postfix/submission/smtpd[21
On Sep 18, 2014, at 20.17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:51:53PM -0400, btb wrote:
>
>> From: postmas...@phonesrv.example.com
>> To: "VOICE/1nnn5551212"@phonesrv.example.com
>
> Is that the address or the "display name"? What i
On Sep 22, 2014, at 11.41, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This time PLEASE refrain from sidetracking the discussion. I want
> to know what will break when the default changes, if that is not
> too much to ask for.
>
> Summary:
>
> Until now, Postfix has a default setting "append_dot_mydomain = yes".
>
On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> the version, release date, and so on.
this reminds me - some time long ago, i happened to notice that
config_di
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in setti
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.32, Wietse Venema wrote:
> b...@bitrate.net:
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
>>> the version, release date, and
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
