[pfx] Re: Dumb question about logging

2024-03-09 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:58:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users: > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:49:42PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via > > Postfix-users wrote: > > > > > In case of domains in relay_domains, the command could be even > > >

[pfx] Re: mta-sts and smtp_tls_security_level

2024-03-09 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 07:21:53PM +0100, Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users wrote: > I thought almost all cloud providers use anycast these days, > elminating the need to serve different IPs per region. No. That's not the case. Anycast is a useful tool, but isn't the whole story. The

[pfx] Re: mta-sts and smtp_tls_security_level

2024-03-09 Thread Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users
I thought almost all cloud providers use anycast these days, elminating the need to serve different IPs per region. Joachim -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users Gesendet: Samstag, 9. März 2024 18:42 An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: [pfx] Re: mta-sts

[pfx] Re: Dumb question about logging

2024-03-09 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users: > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:49:42PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via > Postfix-users wrote: > > > In case of domains in relay_domains, the command could be even > > postfix/relay, so one needs to exclude that one as well. > > Actually, no, the "relay"

[pfx] Re: mta-sts and smtp_tls_security_level

2024-03-09 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 10:46:17AM +0100, Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users wrote: > > Viktor Dukhovni: > > not sufficient market pressure to make it a priority. > Unfortunately yes, not yet. > > various load balancers would need to do online DNSSEC signing > Can you please elaborate why that

[pfx] Re: Dumb question about logging

2024-03-09 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:49:42PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote: > In case of domains in relay_domains, the command could be even > postfix/relay, so one needs to exclude that one as well. Actually, no, the "relay" transport is implemented by the smtp(8) delivery agent,

[pfx] Re: [ext] Re: [OT] postfwd3 as check_policy_service hogging the CPU

2024-03-09 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users: > On 07.03.24 12:14, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > >The Postfix SMTP server counts only the recipients that it accepts, > >not the ones that it rejects. > > > >That is, a DATA or BDAT command after all recipients are rejected > >will result in a

[pfx] Re: Dumb question about logging

2024-03-09 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
Stephen Satchell via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-03-08 06:52: grep relay= mail.log | grep -v relay=local I can then use the message ID to get all the log information for each questioned transaction. Am I on the right road? Please disabuse me of any incorrect notions. On 08.03.24 12:47,

[pfx] Re: [ext] Re: [OT] postfwd3 as check_policy_service hogging the CPU

2024-03-09 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 07.03.24 12:14, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: The Postfix SMTP server counts only the recipients that it accepts, not the ones that it rejects. That is, a DATA or BDAT command after all recipients are rejected will result in a "554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients". So I guess

[pfx] Re: mta-sts and smtp_tls_security_level

2024-03-09 Thread Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users
> Viktor Dukhovni: > not sufficient market pressure to make it a priority. Unfortunately yes, not yet. > various load balancers would need to do online DNSSEC signing Can you please elaborate why that should be required? Thanks, Joachim ___