Dnia 25.03.2024 o godz. 16:11:47 Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users pisze:
> 2 postfix mail server, one, mail-server1, is connected to the
> internet, the second,
> calling it list-server1, which serves a few mailing lists, is only
> reachable thru
> mail-server1.
>
> On mail-server1 a
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:11:47PM +0100, Daniel Marquez-Klaka via
Postfix-users wrote:
> I have a problem with check_sender_access that I can't find a solution to.
>
> 2 postfix mail server, one, mail-server1, is connected to the
> internet, the second, calling it list-server1, which serves a
On 25.03.24 16:11, Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users wrote:
I have a problem with check_sender_access that I can't find a solution
to.
My setup actually works very well with the exception of bounce handling.
More on that later, first to describe my setup:
2 postfix mail server, one,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 09:24:23AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> thought-chain could be:
> IF there is no MITM, and IF the session is encrypted, then at least use good
> encrpytion so that an attacker which is only able to listen, is not able to
> get the content.
But, in that case, the
Hello List,
I have a problem with check_sender_access that I can't find a solution
to.
My setup actually works very well with the exception of bounce handling.
More on that later, first to describe my setup:
2 postfix mail server, one, mail-server1, is connected to the internet,
the second,
Am 2024-03-23 17:17, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
PS: As of January 2024, the German BSI has tighten its recommendation
for asymmetric algorithms over finite fields to at least 3000 bits
(i.e. RSA encryption, RSA signatures and FFDH).
With little thought about the opportunistic
Am 2024-03-23 15:58, schrieb Matthias Nagel via Postfix-users:
I wonder whether setting `smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file` to a custom
2048-bit DH group would help? But from my understanding of the docs
that should not be necessary as Postfix 3.8.5 uses a built-in 2048bit
group if left empty.
