On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
...
Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
On 15.07.20 09:25, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
You apparently missed
Michael Orlitzky:
> On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
> >
>
> For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
>
>
On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
>
> ...
>
> Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
>
For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
postscreen_blacklist_action (default: ignore)
parameter
Hello!
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb am 15.07.20 um 13:28:02 Uhr:
> >The local user exists as andr...@dualbit.de. What is the problem?
>
> andr...@dualbit1.dualbit.de it different than andr...@dualbit.de
>
> either the doveco must accept dualbit1.dualbit.de same as dualbit.de or you
> need
On 15.07.20 13:22, ratatouille wrote:
mail_version = 3.3.1
I am blind at the moment. I configured postfix and dovecot to deliver
via lmtp to a users local mailbox and get
Jul 15 13:14:40 dualbit1 postfix/lmtp[8901]: 173C931068B4:
to=, orig_to=,
Hello!
mail_version = 3.3.1
I am blind at the moment. I configured postfix and dovecot to deliver
via lmtp to a users local mailbox and get
Jul 15 13:14:40 dualbit1 postfix/lmtp[8901]: 173C931068B4:
to=, orig_to=,
relay=dualbit1.dualbit.de[private/dovecot-lmtp], delay=0.23,
