On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 08:27:41AM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-devel wrote:
> > Well, this only belongs in a dedicated transport used to relay mail into
> > Exchange authenticated via GSSAPI. This is a rather specialised use
> > case. So I would not put this in main.cf.
>
> A dedicated tra
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-devel:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 10:40:21PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour via
> Postfix-devel wrote:
>
> > > How about this:
> > >
> > > main.cf:
> > > # Some Microsoft servers violate RFC 2554 section 4.
> > > smtp_reply_filter = pcre:{{/^334\s+GSSAPI\s+supported
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 10:40:21PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour via Postfix-devel
wrote:
> > How about this:
> >
> > main.cf:
> > # Some Microsoft servers violate RFC 2554 section 4.
> > smtp_reply_filter = pcre:{{/^334\s+GSSAPI\s+supported/ 334}}
> >
> > For a description of inline PCRE t
On 3/1/25 3:34 PM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-devel wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-devel:
>> This looks like a clear violation of
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2554#section-4
>>
>> Should we really unconditionally ignore protocol violations that might
>> indicate that the
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-devel:
> This looks like a clear violation of
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2554#section-4
>
> Should we really unconditionally ignore protocol violations that might
> indicate that the client and server are out of sync???
>
> I'm inclined to sugges
On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 08:15:08AM +0100, michael-dev via Postfix-devel wrote:
> Microsoft Exchange sends non-empty string which postfix interprets as
> non-empty initial challenge while it is clearly not.
>
> Fix compatibility by ignoring the irrelevant data.
>
> Trace of failed connection:
>
