, surely they can't be that inept with email.
Is there a list admin around . . . .
--
"Everything, always can be done otherwise and better."
Regards,
Phil
On 30 Nov 2015, at 09:47, phil wrote:
Smells like a spammer to me, no subject, no body, 3 messages now all the same
in the last 5 minutes, surely they can't be that inept with email.
In that case, shut up! Don't add to the noise by posting to the list.
This is not going
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/09/14 12:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:50:24AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> .> In order to figure out the version of a program it is common
>> to make
>>> the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the
>>
On 02/10/14 23:22, Venkat wrote:
On Oct 2, 2014 1:44 AM, "Mike Cardwell" mailto:post...@lists.grepular.com>> wrote:
>
> What (if there is one) is the current "recommended" book for learning
> Postfix? I've come across "The Book of Postfix" and "The Definitive
> Guide to Postfix", but the bo
fix/header_checks
and in that file put something like . . .
/^Subject: / WARN
regards
phil
u use regexp or pcre?
Using the regexp method i get in my logs
Apr 21 16:45:48 milmx01 postfix/cleanup[7242]: 17E5C15C076B: warning:
header Subject: Re: Add subject in logs or into a file ? from
camomile.cloud9.net[168.100.1.3]; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
regards
Phil
a lot of subjet are
novice like me :)
Just make sure you create the file "logs_subjects" and in that file put
/^Subject: / WARN
That should do the trick, oh and don't forget to reload postfix!
Phil
2015-04-21 8:53 GMT+02:00 phil mailto:p...@philfixit.info>>:
On 21/04/2015 4:44 PM,
origin = mycompany.com
smtp_helo_name = mailserver.mycompany.com
smtpd_banner = mailserver.mycompany.com ESMTP $mail_name
... but this doesn't feel like a proper solution. Can the list recommend any
tried and tested configurations for achieving this mixed scenario.
Thanks,
Phil.
I've been exploring, both on my mail-server-to-be, and on the Dovecot
mailing list, just why it is that the Dovecot deliver program is leaving the
domain string empty when formulating the mail location path. The answer I'm
getting now on that list is that it is a Postfix problem and that I should
I'm looking for an SMTP testing tool I can use to do tests of configuration
changes to Postfix. To do the proper tests I need to carry out the actual
SMTP protocol from this program (as opposed to just putting mail in the
queue), with TLS, STARTTLS, and login/authentication support, do it from a
c
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This sounds like a job for Expect and "openssl s_client".
> Expect is at http://expect.nist.gov/
>
Ah, yeah ... that ... or pexpect for Python (just used pexpect last month to
extract stats from our Cisco routers).
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 15:15, mouss wrote:
> if perl is acceptable for you, then it's easy to do what you want using
> available perl modules, or you can just use:
>
> http://www.logix.cz/michal/devel/smtp-cli/smtp-cli
>
I think Wietse was on the right track. I'll probably just use pexpect +
o
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:45, Stefan Foerster <
cite+postfix-us...@incertum.net > wrote:
> Perhaps "swaks" is the right tool for you:
>
> http://jetmore.org/john/code/swaks/
>
Yes, that looks very much like it would be a great tool. Thanks.
I want to translate a domain (foo.myohiovalley.net) to another domain (
myohiovalley.net) such that for all users (xy...@foo.myohiovalley.net) they
will be delivered (I'm using virtual_mailbox_domains, etc) as in the target
domain (xy...@myohiovalley.net). I thought this would be accomplished by
p
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:10, Noel Jones wrote:
> While postfix does support wildcard domain > domain rewriting, it is highly
> discouraged because it disables recipient validation -- that tends to fill
> your queue with undeliverable mail and will get you blacklisted as a
> backscatter source.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Don't do that.
>
> Postfix will accept mail for addresses that don't exist and later
> bounce that mail to innocent people.
>
Of course I don't want to do that. Sounds like what I need is something
that will map the address at RCPT TO time,
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:14, Noel Jones wrote:
> If smtp_generic_maps suit your needs, they will not affect recipient
> validation, and may be easier to implement.
>
Isn't that a client mapping that would apply to sender addresses on
outgoing?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:00, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/19/2010 2:49 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 15:14, Noel Jones > <mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org>> wrote:
>>
>>If smtp_generic_maps suit your needs, they will not affect recipient
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 17:46, Noel Jones wrote:
> Sounds as if you need to generate static files with a script. Don't worry
> about the number of entries; hash: tables scale well to hundreds of thousand
> entries, or use cdb: files for fast performance up to millions of entries.
> (cdb: works g
I was originally setting up for one hostname to which outgoing email would
be sent. Now it looks like we have some internal users that cannot reach
the firewall (because they are in a no-internet-access zone). It turns out,
for them to get to the mail server, they have to address it as a differen
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will do),
and the RFCs are coming up empty. I thought it was 587. But RFC4409
doesn't say if
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes wrote:
> On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> > I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
> > (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
> > co
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:29, John Peach wrote:
> 465 is for SMTP over SSL, which is deprecated.
>
What is deprecated? Using port 465? Or doing SMTP over SSL?
Unfortunately, I need to do the latter because of some network security and
access issues (and for like reason am doing IMAP over SSL
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:40, John Peach wrote:
> Why not use "smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt" on port 587?
>
The remote site involved is tunneling these connections through something
like SSL, as far as I can tell. It works fine on port 993 for IMAP.
Why is SMTP over SSL depricated whil
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 16:15, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-21 4:04 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> OK, I can do SMTP over TLS/SSL on port 465 (with a slight and unlikely
>> risk of usage collision). So what is port 587 for?
>
> ? This question has been answered at least
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 18:03, mouss wrote:
> if you mean "wrapper mode ssl" (aka smtps), then
> $ grep smtps /etc/services
> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>
> this is non standard. but it's used by outlook and by other "people".
>
> in the old days, people kept a
So it looks like the IP address parser used here doesn't accept all
valid forms of IPv6?
fatal: /etc/postfix/master.cf: line 32: valid hostname or network
address required in "[fc00::0.0.0.25]:25"
It worked when I used "[fc00::0019]:25".
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss wrote:
> As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
>> I get mine from IANA and 465 is assigned differently.
>
> what OS do you run? if smtps != 465 on your system, then the default
> master.cf doesn't work for you,
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> 0.0.0.25 is not a valid IPv4 address.
It is a valid way to express the last 32 bits of any IPv6 address. It
only needs to be a valid IPv4 address if the previous 96 bits are
"::" (or one other case I don't reacall that I read about). It
I'd like to do something like this. I have a domain, let's call
example.com. This domain has a set of users. I want to have email
accepted for any user in any hostname that is a part of this domain.
And, regardless of which hostname in this domain was involved, if the
user doesn't exist, the RCP
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre tables.
>
> 1) You can use them for all the tables that define Postfix address
> classes: mydestination + aliases, virtual_alias_domains +
> virtual_alias_maps, virtual_mailbox_domains + virtua
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:37, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>> > Postfix supports wildcards via regexp/pcre tables.
>> >
>> > ?1) You can use them for all the tables that define Post
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 13:41, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:09:09AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, it was never standar
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
> You need one table entry per user somewhere, otherwise you can't
> reject mail for users that don't exist.
Absolutely, of course. But having one entry for every pairing of user
AND hostname isn't possible (because an infinite number of hostp
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 17:10, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>> > You need one table entry per user somewhere, otherwise you can't
>> > reject mail for users that don't exist.
>>
&g
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 15:59, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:37, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > Phil Howard:
>> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Postfix supports wildcard
May 26 15:59:27 eth0 postfix/pipe[17347]: 0C35B68534:
to=, orig_to=, relay=dovecot, delay=21567,
delays=21567/0.02/0/0.06, dsn=4.1.1, status=SOFTBOUNCE (user unknown)
I do have f...@example.com configured in virtual_alias_maps to go to
b...@example.com ... and that is working as I can send mail to
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:52, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-26 4:12 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> Is there a way to get it to be remapped now that it is in the
>> delivery queue? Or should I just create a mailbox for f...@example.com
>> and mv the file over to b...@example
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 17:36, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> This might seem odd to some for me to say, but I really don't understand
> why you're trying so vainly to be such a stickler for the so-called
> "standards" in this case.
>
> IANA's "port numbers" are more a Best Common Practice than a literal
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
>
> Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
> recei
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:46, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> Try it an see. If it fails to connect or times out, and local policy
>> and/or message parameters allow this, fall back to SMTP. Specific
>> detail
It looks like postmap can read stdin when getting a list of keys for
delete or query. There appeared to be no documented way to read from
stdin to create a new map. So I tried the following:
marconi/root/x0 /root 37# ls -dl
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 14:58, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> It looks like postmap can read stdin when getting a list of keys for
>> delete or query.
>
> As documented in the postmap manpage:
>
> -d key
> ...
> If a key val
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:21, Dan Burkland wrote:
> ---main.cf
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination
>
> ---master.cf---
> submission inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o smtpd_enforce_tls=yes
> -
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:52, Dan Burkland wrote:
> My apologies, I typed the parameter in the email incorrectly. It is entered
> correctly in main.cf
> (smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject)
OK, then that looks fine. Since you are having trouble on port 25,
can you show
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 17:16, Wietse Venema wrote:
> You need -o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
> to get relay permissions.
Is that for the submission entry or the smtp entry (that he didn't
provide)? It looks to me like he used mostly the example for
submission.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 18:31, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Dan Burkland wrote:
>
>> Relevant configuration entries:
>>
>> ---main.cf
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination
> ^
>
>> ---master.cf---
>> submissio
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 09:47, Larry Stone wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 18:31, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010, Dan Burkland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Relev
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 13:06, Larry Stone wrote:
> And did you even read what I wrote? I am well aware you made a typo earlier.
> I understand what you meant and said nothing about the mistake.
I think this is a case of users being mixed up. I did not make the
typo ... Dan did. I reported the
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 02:43, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Even though I have considered it myself as well once, I am curious as to why
> someone would put a firewall on localhost?
Other applications could become compromised by spammy virii that
exploited their vulnerabilities and start spewing filth,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco wrote:
> I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all
> this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see
> multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products.
>
> I am fine with the workarounds suppli
I saw fail2ban discussed in another thread. I was wondering if anyone
here have used it to block based on spamtraps. I want to set up a
number of dummy users and splatter their email addresses where
spammers would get at them (e.g. white on white text on web pages,
etc). Then ban the IPs that tr
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 16:46, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> A word of caution: don't assume that everyone browses the web using a
> graphical web browser. People still browse from the command line, and more
> importantly, screen readers for the disabled. If you're going to hide an
> address, make su
I think maybe I'm missing something in the documentation, as I was
sure Postfix could do this. What I want to do is take a list of
things, such as the list of domains for virtual_mailbox_domains, right
out of a file. This isn't a map. But do I still need to do a map,
anyway?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:01, Noel Jones wrote:
> The documentation shows what syntax is supported for each parameter. Some
> -- but not all -- parameters support a plain file list.
>
> You can start here:
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_domains
Been trying to figure t
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:20, Noel Jones wrote:
> From the mydestination docs:
> a "type:table" lookup table is matched when a name matches a lookup key (the
> lookup result is ignored).
>
> All map files require a "key result" format. In the case of a map file
> used as a list, such as virtua
>> How would I do this for smtpd_recipient_restrictions?
>
>
> That question makes no sense. Rephrase.
I was looking for a general solution. I picked an example. But I
apparently picked a bad example because the solution seems to be
example specific. I guess I better not pick examples, anymore
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:44, Noel Jones wrote:
> There is no "include" syntax for main.cf itself.
>
> You can use a Makefile to build a main.cf from proto files, or use "postconf
> -e ..." for program-controlled editing of main.cf.
You'd still have to make it reload for rebuilding the whole f
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> Most Postfix services (i.e. delivery
> agents and inet services) restart automatically after processing
> a ~100 requests, and reloads are not generally needed for parameters
> that touch these services.
Hmmm. Maybe that explains some odd
The default for smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient is yes. How does that
affect using reject_unlisted_recipient in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions? Does it mean it is effectively included
whether you include it or not? I presume I still need to list other
things like "smtpd_recipient_restrictions = pe
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 13:55, Jerry wrote:
> I use Dovecot for virtual transport also. I don't remember exactly why;
> however, I had to place this in the main.cf file:
>
> dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1
>
> By the way, your "smtpd_banner" may make you feel good, but like most
>
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:12, Noel Jones wrote:
> It's about controlling when the check takes place.
> Some people like to reject unlisted recipients before other (maybe more
> expensive) checks. Some people like to reject connections for RBL or
> blacklist before checking recipients to not "le
Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual
delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for
smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport =
something else like dovecot? Can it just have an "OK" value to mean
"yeah, this is a real recipient her
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 17:06, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:39:58PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual
>> delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for
>> smtpd_reject
I don't see any easy fix to this.
A user has email forwarded from their address at domainA to their
address at domainB and also to their address at domainC, each running
on different mail servers (but maybe the same MTA software). The
catch is that domainA uses one recipient delimiter character (
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:08, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> In situations where mail is forwarded outside the environment that
> supports the local recipient delimiter (e.g. Postfix->Exchange):
>
> I set:
>
> propagate_unmatched_extesion = canonical
>
> overriding the default:
>
> propa
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 15:30, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> Another drawback to having versioned documentation online is that El
> Goog is as likely to find the wrong version of a document. If a
> seeker ends up at http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html , all's
> well, but not necessarily so if they fin
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 22:18, Peter Evans wrote:
> If you are bored, you can turn on a catchall, pipe that to a bit
> bucket and see how many you get.
> In fact, here are some results for you. (no spam filters on the work
> box due to
> manglement fiat "IT COULD BE A
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:38, Dipak Biswal
wrote:
> Hi List,
Who?
> I am trying to setup postfix for mass mailing. I need help in following
> areas:
>
> 1. how can we send mails using different IP's .
I suspect you don't need to. But, depending on volume, you may need
send from multiple mach
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:14, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 07:03:14PM +0300, Gaby L / AutoGlobus2000 SRL wrote:
>
>> I want to rewrite "From filed" from header,but only when To: Field
>> is only numeric (fax type)
>> It is:
>> If To: nume...@domain.tld then
>> From repla
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:27, Isaac Witmer wrote:
> I'm doing a custom install, and one of the packages in the install is postfix.
> Each time, it prompts me to select "no configuration" "Local use" etc.
> just after the package has been downloaded and right before it has
> been installed. (simila
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 16:10, Josh Cason wrote:
> I have now went through my config so I will post it if needed. What I'm
> facing now is spam that looks normal. Looks like a reject but is not in some
> cases. The problem is that since these e-mails are delivered to the user
> account. I really do
I am finally putting together a test mail server (something I wish I
had when putting together the first mail server, but lack of hardware
due to lack of funding flow limited that). But now I have another
machine.
But I am still seeing all the issues I had before with Ubuntu. At
first I tried to
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure
> postfix properly.
Name it.
> Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort.
Which do you use?
> Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 14:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-07-07 2:02 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>> I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure
>>> postfix properly.
>
>> Nam
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it.
>> Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with
>> Postfix
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:11, Joe wrote:
> I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and
> have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with.
Are you using the packaged version of Postfix, or the source you
compile yourself?
--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:14, Gary Chambers wrote:
>> No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with
>> Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I
>> suspect at least some surely must be less so.
>
> Why not simply avoid whatever hassles you're enco
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 08:30, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Okay, I may have been baiting a bit there.
> The obvious inference is that you need to know your distro in order to be
> able to do anything useful with it.
> If that causes issues, that distribution's support is your first port of
> call, NOT
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:40, markus reichelt wrote:
> ALso, I can only stress what has been said already: get your distro
> shit together; go along with your hunch about slackware, ask
> slackware specific questions on a slackware mailinglist/usenet group,
> and post postfix problems (which you
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:15, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> (I've installed PF on half a dozen Ubuntu boxes, with no hiccups
> significant enough to remember.)
>
> What I would say is that the differences between distros only involve
> setup and maybe maintenance, and do not involve performance, so
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 13:13, Philipp Leusmann
wrote:
> But I still get the odd
>
> warning: read TCP map reply from localhost:1337: unexpected EOF (Success)
>
> log entry. Is there missing anything?
I gather from the documentation the connection is maintained for more
requests. If your server
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 15:04, markus reichelt wrote:
> * Phil Howard wrote:
>
> A single user scares you? Good heavens.
>
>> So what was my question specific to, if not Postfix? It certainly
>> was not specific to any distro. Postfix was the common element.
>
>
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:09, Stéphane MERLE
wrote:
> I would have 2 questions :
> - 1 what is the procedure for postfix when it try to send email to a
> domain with no MX record ?
> like : dig mx elv.enic.fr
>
> - 2 would that be an offense to refuse to send to domain with no MX
I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
transport) for this one. Attempts to send mail to
postmas...@newdomain.example.com gets "Relay access denied", so it
clearly doesn't recognize the domain (I didn't p
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 16:25, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 09:53 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>> I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
>> the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
>> transport) for th
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 19:02, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> virtual_alias_domains already defaults to virtual_alias_maps. But
>> that wasn't working.
>
> If you believe it is broken then you must provide the evidence,
> otherwise you are just spreading fal
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:07, Simon Waters wrote:
> On Monday 12 July 2010 20:53:46 Phil Howard wrote:
>> I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
>> the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
>> transport) for this one
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:07, Simon Waters wrote:
> On Monday 12 July 2010 20:53:46 Phil Howard wrote:
>> I've added a domain name which has email addresses that are only in
>> the virtual map. There are no real mailboxes over on Dovecot (via
>> transport) for this one
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 17:08, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:49:11PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#virtual_mailbox_domains
>>
>> So what if a given domain is, instead, going to have addresses
>> forw
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:38, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
>> Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some other address
>> (not all with the same domain) and sent on their way. Some of them
>> will be rewritten to addresses that do fall into other classe
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:53, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Howard:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:38, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > Phil Howard:
>> >> Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some othe
In http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html this text ...
A null client is a machine that can only send mail. It receives no
mail from the network, and it does not deliver any mail locally. A
null client typically uses POP, IMAP or NFS for mailbox access.
... is confusing (the pa
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 14:17, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:38:17PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Phil Howard:
>> > Every address in these domains will be rewritten to some other address
>> > (not all with the same domain) and sent on thei
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 15:19, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:10PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> > This is all documented Phil, please read more carefully, and if not sure
>> > what something means, test your understanding in a test configuration t
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:23, Jay G. Scott wrote:
>
> what's the deal w/ no configure script?
>
> you do know that you DON'T NEED autoconf/automake to install, right?
> they're not hiding behind that old dodge, are they? i'm so sick of
> that.
>
> if i supply a configure script, will you guys use
For some of the smtpd restrictions I would like to merely tag a
message instead of outright reject it. It would be either delivered
as usual with the tagging in place for the client or user agent to
check for, or be used to deliver the mail to a special folder. If the
tagging is done by adding "+
I'm sending mail out through amavis for spam checking, and back in,
again. There are extra "Received:" headers being added. Is there a
way to either remove these, or customize them to "X-Received:" or
something? Amavis adds one and that's an amavis issue. Postfix adds
one coming back and that's
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38, Noel Jones wrote:
> In postfix, you can use a header_checks IGNORE rule to remove unwanted
> headers. Be careful that your rule only matches the exact header you want
> to remove.
As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
message. When
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 15:43, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
>> message.
>
> The header_checks(5) code is implemented by cleanup(8) which
1 - 100 of 440 matches
Mail list logo
