On 2024-01-21 09:29, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On 2024-01-21 04:43, Patrick Domack via dovecot wrote:
Quoting Benny Pedersen :
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on
If postfix is adding it, your not using lmtp.
Only virtual and local adds it in postfix, lmtp is a symlink to smtp
and does not add that header.
If your somehow delivering the mail through local, then forwarding it
again via lmtp, that would be a bad thing.
Maybe look how you have
On 2024-01-21 04:43, Patrick Domack via dovecot wrote:
Quoting Benny Pedersen :
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All
mail is sent from postfix to
Quoting Benny Pedersen :
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All
mail is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
it simply works better with lda ?
Christian Kivalo skrev den 2024-01-21 02:08:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
Duplicate return path headers? I don't see them on my system. All mail
is sent from postfix to dovecot with lmtp
it simply works better with lda ? :)
return-path is std postfix
Michael Peddemors skrev den 2024-01-21 00:51:
Just wish LMTP would not end up with duplicate Return-Path headers..
why ?
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Same here with Exim delivering to Dovecot via LMTP.
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 7:23 PM Christian Kivalo wrote:
On January 21, 2024 12:51:00 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Peddemors
wrote:
>On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
>> On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
>>> I noticed
On January 21, 2024 12:51:00 AM GMT+01:00, Michael Peddemors
wrote:
>On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
>> On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
>>> I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned
>>> from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing
On 2024-01-19 16:12, Peter wrote:
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples
gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing
sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and
seems
Thanks for the reassurance. It was a reach, hoping for some straw to
grasp regarding the managesieve 4190 failure to bind.
On 1/19/24 18:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples
gleaned from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when
On 20/01/24 12:28, Joe Acquisto wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned
from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and
seems to say in places that sieve will
Does it matter to sieve implementation if one uses only lmtp?
No. Works here with only lmtp.
--
Christian Kivalo
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
Nope. That's what I do.
With the new Tainting rules in the Exim MTA, LMTP became the easier of the two.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 5:28 PM Joe Acquisto
wrote:
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples
gleaned
from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol
I noticed that many places in the documentation and in examples gleaned
from the wilderness, refer to the LDA protocol when discussing sieve.
The documentation also mentions that lmtp is preferred over lda, and
seems to say in places that sieve will operate without issue in either case.
Does
14 matches
Mail list logo
