Oh, and if its possible, is it also possible to specify the original domains as "any domain with an MX of $REGEX"
instead of only "any recipient domain of $REGEX"?
Thanks,
Matt
On 8/10/21 22:34, Matt Corallo wrote:
I have a need to map some destination domains to a specific smtp nexthop, but
I have a need to map some destination domains to a specific smtp nexthop, but need to override that nexthop on a
sender_dependent basis. I've tried a few things and all with no luck:
* transport_maps specifying the nexthop can't be overridden at all, it seems (and doesn't support
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 07:54:35PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:48:24AM +1000, raf wrote:
>
> > If you want postfix to reject a connection immediately
> > after the first SMTP protocol error it encounters,
> > without the need to construct in advance a list of all
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:48:24AM +1000, raf wrote:
> If you want postfix to reject a connection immediately
> after the first SMTP protocol error it encounters,
> without the need to construct in advance a list of all
> possible errors, just set smtpd_hard_error_limit = 0.
>
>
On 2021-08-10 16:07:48, Mono DHS wrote:
> And the right to reject non-SMTP input follows from operating an
> SMTP MTA on the well-known TCP port 25, while at the same time holding
> up the fundamental principle upon which the success of the Internet is
> based, namely of being liberal in what one
Podskubka, Stefan:
> Wietse Venema:
> > The error happened because the hostname "dovecot" did not resolve.
> >
> > This may be affected by how compatibility_level is set, because
> > compatibility_level is processed before Postfix's chroot feature makes some
> > files inaccessible.
>
> Wow, I
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 02:45:06PM -0400, Wietse Venema
wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > I see. We're splitting hairs the difference between 'not implemented'
> > versus 'not recognized'. In that light, the patch looks correct to me.
>
> Implemented :-)
>
> Wietse
That'll be a relief to
Wietse Venema:
> The error happened because the hostname "dovecot" did not resolve.
>
> This may be affected by how compatibility_level is set, because
> compatibility_level is processed before Postfix's chroot feature makes some
> files inaccessible.
Wow, I was completely thrown off the right
Podskubka, Stefan:
> Aug 10 19:39:14 4097ff109d16 postfix/smtpd[112]:
> xsasl_dovecot_server_connect: Connecting
> Aug 10 19:39:14 4097ff109d16 postfix/smtpd[112]: fatal: host/service
> dovecot/666 not found: Device or resource busy
This error message is from inet_connect():
if ((parse_err
Dear Postfix experts!
Although I have found a solution/workaround for the problem mentioned here, for
what it's worth, I still wanted to make the effort to report it as a possible
bug.
Summary
===
I have a test setup on my local machine where I am running Postfix and Dovecot,
each in a
Wietse Venema:
> I see. We're splitting hairs the difference between 'not implemented'
> versus 'not recognized'. In that light, the patch looks correct to me.
Implemented :-)
Wietse
Wietse Venema:
A. Schulze:
Is there a recommended/any way to log messages from a script via postfix?
Not at this time. Making the postlog command setgid requires a security
analysis and that may require some code restructuring before this can
be done without opening up a security hole.
Hello,
On 2021-08-10, at 07:39 (UTC-0700), Stephen Satchell had the following to say:
: On 8/10/21 7:00 AM, Mono DHS wrote:
: > Are there plans to revisit the SMTP command parsing and handling logic
: > in the server in one form or another? Are people making active use of
: > the
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:50:56AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > A reasonable person would agree that the parameter syntax of an
> > unimplemented command cannot be validated.
>
> FWIW, the pedantically standards-compliant response to an unknown
> SMTP command is in fact
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:50:56AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> A reasonable person would agree that the parameter syntax of an
> unimplemented command cannot be validated.
FWIW, the pedantically standards-compliant response to an unknown
SMTP command is in fact 500, rather than 502:
A. Schulze:
> Hello,
>
> I've to rebuild a service: messages to an address are delivered via postfix
> pipe to a script.
> This script use syslog to write it's messages. That worked well for years.
>
> Now, postfix run in a different way, supervised via "postfix start-fg"
> (docker)
>
Mono DHS:
> First, upon receiving input consisting of the three tokens "POST",
> "/", and "HTTP/1.0", the server should have recognised that such a
> token sequence does not constitute a valid SMTP command line.
>From the server's point of view, the POST command is unimplemented.
It could have
On 8/10/21 7:00 AM, Mono DHS wrote:
Are there plans to revisit the SMTP command parsing and handling logic
in the server in one form or another? Are people making active use of
the smtpd_forbidden_commands parameter?
Short answer: yes
Longer answer: See this shell sequence:
# postconf
Hello,
On 2021-08-09, at 16:33 (UTC+0200), Matus UHLAR - fantomas had the following to
say:
: I don't know where you got that address is not allowed in helo/ehlo - it is.
The (current) standard says that it is for EHLO and it is not for HELO [1].
Thanks,
Mono
[1]
Hello again,
On 2021-08-09, at 09:39 (UTC-0400), Wietse Venema had the following to say:
: There was a Postfix-users thread that led to this.
: https://marc.info/?t=11012289581=1=2
Uh, oh. The example conversation is noteworthy for two reasons.
First, upon receiving input consisting of
Hello,
I've to rebuild a service: messages to an address are delivered via postfix
pipe to a script.
This script use syslog to write it's messages. That worked well for years.
Now, postfix run in a different way, supervised via "postfix start-fg" (docker)
Essentially the is no syslogd.
My idea
21 matches
Mail list logo
