Perhaps against my better judgment...
On 9 Feb 2016, at 17:12, @lbutlr wrote:
On Tue Feb 09 2016 14:46:15 Bill
Cole said:
both in its ultimate purpose
Purpose is my son’s email is in a mysql domain, and he is getting
emails for a trip to Japan later this year. We need to forward all
thos
On Tue Feb 09 2016 14:46:15 Bill Cole
said:
>
> both in its ultimate purpose
Purpose is my son’s email is in a mysql domain, and he is getting emails for a
trip to Japan later this year. We need to forward all those mails from the trip
coordinator to me and his mother and to him. It would
On 9 Feb 2016, at 15:23, @lbutlr wrote:
On Mon Feb 08 2016 20:24:45 Bill
Cole said:
[...]
Never gets used, because that file is for mapping addresses in
virtual alias domains, of which xanmax.com is not one.
Aha! That makes sense.
Yeah, I though so too, but as Viktor has disabused me of a
On Tue Feb 09 2016 13:23:13 @lbutlr <@lbutlr> said:
>
> virtual:t...@kreme.com
> xander+ja...@xanmax.com,kris+ja...@kreme.com,lb+ja...@kreme.com
> header_checks.pcre:/^From:.*t...@kreme.com/ REDIRECT ja...@kreme.com
>
> $ postmap -q t...@kreme.com hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/virtual
On Tue Feb 09 2016 13:27:24 Viktor Dukhovni
said:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:23:13PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
>
$ grep japan /usr/local/etc/postfix/virtual
ja...@xanmax.com
xander+ja...@xanmax.com,kris+ja...@kreme.com,lb+ja...@kreme.com
>>>
>>> Never gets used, be
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:23:13PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
> >> $ grep japan /usr/local/etc/postfix/virtual
> >> ja...@xanmax.com
> >> xander+ja...@xanmax.com,kris+ja...@kreme.com,lb+ja...@kreme.com
> >
> > Never gets used, because that file is for mapping addresses in virtual
> > alias
On Mon Feb 08 2016 20:24:45 Bill Cole
said:
>
> On 8 Feb 2016, at 17:25, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Bill Cole
>> wrote:
>>> However, there's still something missing in what you've provided: "postconf
>>> -n" output. All of it. Preferably unmunged, but if you absolutely
Yes in my issue this email can be accepted. i especialy look domain part of
email.
You're right, maybe i try to custom filter :(
Thanks.
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> How about "Administrator" -- would you accept
> that?
>
> You may have to do a custom filter to do w
Selcuk Yazar:
> Actually
>
> My example is wrong . i wantto find special word in email address name and
> domain part.esp. company name
>
> For me
>
> "Satchell"
>
> address is ok but
>
> "Satchell" is
>
> address that i try to find.
If you want to do this for only a few recipients:
Actually
My example is wrong . i wantto find special word in email address name and
domain part.esp. company name
For me
"Satchell"
address is ok but
"Satchell" is
address that i try to find.
Thanks.
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 10:58 AM, Selc
Hi,
I want to create a regex rule for find email addresses formatted like
From: some_name
For example: i want to find emails like
From: Postfix
is it possible?
Thanks in advance
--
Selçuk YAZAR
http://www.selcukyazar.blogspot.com
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:51 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> So this is a significant regression vs 2.x. I need it to return valid values
> based on what the netmask settings are for the interface.
I repeat: there is no regression, the pain is self-inficted.
The defaults are backwards-compa
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 1:24 PM -0500 Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
Sounds like you want "mynetworks_style = subnet", so go ahead and
do that, provided no hosts sharing the same subnet are untrusted
(for relay and the like).
Yeah, just got that sorted out. I was thinking the old default wa
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:36 PM -0500 Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Even after setting the style to "host", it still generates the incorrect
> >> netmask:
> >>
> >> [zimbra@zre-ldap003 ~
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:36 PM -0500 Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
Even after setting the style to "host", it still generates the incorrect
netmask:
[zimbra@zre-ldap003 ~]$ postconf mynetworks mynetworks_style
mynetworks = 127.0.0
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> Even after setting the style to "host", it still generates the incorrect
> netmask:
>
> [zimbra@zre-ldap003 ~]$ postconf mynetworks mynetworks_style
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.1/32 10.137.242.53/32 [::1]/128
> [fc00:10:137:242::53]/128
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> Thanks. In going over the old 2.x system, inet_protocols wasn't explicitly
> set in main.cf, so it defaulted to "all". Now I have it explicitly set to
> what postfix ships with, which is "ipv4" as the default.
Actually, "ipv4" is
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 8:56 AM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:00 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
The "inet_protocols" setting is not covered by this, because it hasn't
changed.
BTW, with inet_protocols=ipv4, Postfix has never included IPv6
addre
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:00 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
The "inet_protocols" setting is not covered by this, because it hasn't
changed.
BTW, with inet_protocols=ipv4, Postfix has never included IPv6
addresses in the default mynetworks value. Including IPv6 addresses
would not mak
Wietse Venema:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> > Is there any way to get the entire behavior to be as it was in 2.x and
> > previous? I can set the style to hosts, but I want the entire interface
> > data set correctly regardless of what the current inet_protocols option is
> > set to.
>
> We aim to
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> Is there any way to get the entire behavior to be as it was in 2.x and
> previous? I can set the style to hosts, but I want the entire interface
> data set correctly regardless of what the current inet_protocols option is
> set to.
We aim to please:
http://www.postf
--On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:14 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
--On Monday, February 08, 2016 8:00 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
>> In Postfix > 3.0.x, the value from postconf mynetworks returns
>> incorrect netmask values, and it is missing I
Hi,
I am trying to configure distribution lists with restricted senders.
Scenario:
I have testlist...@domain.tld with the recipients pers...@domain.tld,
pers...@domain.tld and pers...@other.tld
Only Person A should be allowed to send mails to testlist001.
I used http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION
Tom Hendrikx:
> > $ postconf -d mynetworks_style
> > mynetworks_style = ${{$compatibility_level} < {2} ? {subnet} : {host}}
> >
>
> You could argue that "mynetworks_style = host" still should set the
> subnet for 127.0.0.1 to /8, and not /32
On many systems, an interface address of 127.0.0.1 is
On 09-02-16 12:14, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
>> --On Monday, February 08, 2016 8:00 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
In Postfix > 3.0.x, the value from postconf mynetworks returns incorrect
netmask values, and it is missing IPv6 entirely:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Monday, February 08, 2016 8:00 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> >> In Postfix > 3.0.x, the value from postconf mynetworks returns incorrect
> >> netmask values, and it is missing IPv6 entirely:
> >
> > This depends on the inet_protocols set
26 matches
Mail list logo
