On 1/16/2017 12:04 AM, David Mehler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Postfix 3.1. A telnet connection to port 25 and another to
> port 587, does not announce the sasl auth capabilities.
> smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_tls_auth_only
... "do not announce or
Hello,
I'm running Postfix 3.1. A telnet connection to port 25 and another to
port 587, does not announce the sasl auth capabilities.
I'd appreciate a sanity check of my configuration done with postconf -n.
Thanks.
Dave.
autoresponder_destination_recipient_limit = 1
biff = no
bounce_template_fi
A word to the wise. Message received.
Again, thanks!
> On Jan 15, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Richie Rich wrote:
>
> I'm sorry Viktor, but it seems I didn't make my goal clear. Here it is again
> restated.
No need, I understood what you wanted the first time.
> I have tested using canonical_maps where:
> u...@domainb.comu...@example.com
This is the
I'm sorry Viktor, but it seems I didn't make my goal clear. Here it is
again restated.
Our canonical domain is example.com
Two of our hosted domains are domainA.com, and domainB.com. These are not
subdomains of example.com, but rather separate domains entirely that are
delivered locally.
The goal
> On Jan 15, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> I recommend against masquerading, because it breaks recipient
> validation. Instead, construct a table of all the valid addresses
> for each user, and use canonical_maps.
To be more precise, it is not that masquerading directly break
Thank you. I understand, but this requirement is imposed by my business
unit...
I haven't tried canonical_maps yet, but I was about to head down that road.
I'll give it a shot.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 01:02:37PM -0500, Richie Rich wrote
As a side note, we are migrating to Postfix. In our current Sendmail
environment, we accomplish the requisite masquerading by adding each domain
to /etc/mail/local-host-names.
This accomplishes the masquerading piece and allows for virtual hosting.
Then for those domains we do not want to masquerad
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 01:02:37PM -0500, Richie Rich wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate the help.
>
> I am already leveraging /etc/postfix/virtual to route traffic to my "hosted
> domains".
>
> The problem I'm trying to solve, simply stated, is that I need to be able
> to selec
Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate the help.
I am already leveraging /etc/postfix/virtual to route traffic to my "hosted
domains".
The problem I'm trying to solve, simply stated, is that I need to be able
to selectively masquerade inbound email to my hosted domains.
So, u...@doma.com wil
On 15 January 2017 at 08:51, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> On 14/01/17 20:58, Richie Rich wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick response. Can you point me in a direction to
> > accomplish what I'm trying to do?
> > I'm totally new to postfix.
>
> I am by no means an expert, but I do hope that the following hel
On 15.01.2017 07:39, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/14/2017 2:40 AM, Admin Beckspaced wrote:
All other MTA's don't seem to have any problems with TLS / STARTTLS.
What can I do to fix this problem? Let the other MTA know that they
got an issue with their TLS setup?
Thanks & greetings
Becki
If your g
On 14/01/17 20:58, Richie Rich wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response. Can you point me in a direction to
> accomplish what I'm trying to do?
> I'm totally new to postfix.
I am by no means an expert, but I do hope that the following helps:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_generic_maps
13 matches
Mail list logo
