-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 15:24 +0200, Herbert J. Skuhra via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 14:32:06 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > * Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users :
> > > Mar 17 11:38:31 localhost
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 2023-04-22 at 11:25 -0400, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 01:08:06PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via
> Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > > You should set a POST_HOOK in certbot renew (assuming you're using
>
On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 17:35 +0200, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> Looking at the opendkim/opendmarc right now, they appear dead over the past 2
> years or so, which is sad really.
>
It's not sad at all. It's a testament to the stability of the project.
Sure, both projects could use
On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 10:37 -0500, John Stoffel wrote:
> > > > > > "Jim" == Jim Popovitch writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 11:36 -0500, John Stoffel wrote:
> > I check, but I find my IP for mail.stoffel.org in the UCEPROTECT-3
> > spam lis
On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 11:36 -0500, John Stoffel wrote:
I check, but I find my IP for mail.stoffel.org in the UCEPROTECT-3
spam list. Nothing I can do about it.
I doubt that many sites block by using UCEPROTECH-3 alone, but you can
use www.whitelisted.org to be excluded from it.
-Jim P.
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 12:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:25 -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:35:05AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Any suggest
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:25 -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:35:05AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > Any suggestion?
> >
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > recipient_bcc_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc.pcre
> >
> > /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc.pcre:
> >
Hello!
I'm trying to get a complex header_check to work, and unfortunately it
isn't. :( I started in #postfix and figured I would follow up here too.
The goal is to put mail on HOLD if it is not spam and is destined for 2
role accounts. Any help is much appreciated.
~$ cat header_checks.pcre
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 12:23 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > This config produces the warning/error message:
> >
> > mail_version = 3.6.3
> > smtpd_relay_restrictions = ${{$compatibility_level} > {permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 11:32 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 22:29 +1100, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Removing the compatibility_level setting entirely could introduce
> > > the reported sympto
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 22:29 +1100, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
> Removing the compatibility_level setting entirely could introduce
> the reported symptoms, if "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" doesn't
> have any of the "default deny" rules, and relies on the relay
> restrictions to prevent relay
On Thu, 2022-01-06 at 00:11 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 21:21, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 20:45 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
> > > On 05/01/2022 20:19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > > > This can't be right
> > > >
> >
On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 20:45 +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 05/01/2022 20:19, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > This can't be right
> >
> > Using 'postconf -d smtpd_relay_restrictions'...
> >
> > ...on postfix v3.5 (Debian/Buster)
> > smtpd_relay_restr
This can't be right
Using 'postconf -d smtpd_relay_restrictions'...
...on postfix v3.5 (Debian/Buster)
smtpd_relay_restrictions = ${{$compatibility_level} < {1} ? {} :
{permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
defer_unauth_destination}}
...on postfix v3.6.3 (Debian/Bookworm)
On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 21:14 -0500, Ken Wright wrote:
> flags=DRhu
> user=vmail argv=/usr/bin/maildrop -d ${recipient}
> uucp unix - n n - - pipe
> flags=Fqhu
> user=uucp argv=uux -r -n -z -a$sender - $nexthop!rmail ($recipient)
> ifmail unix -
On Sat, 2021-07-03 at 00:30 -0600, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> MX backups are a legacy of 30-40 years ago when it was very common to
> have machines that only periodically connected to the Internet. There
> are many reasons they are a bad idea in a modern context, and having a
> third party be a alternate
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 19:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > > Postfix will try each IP address in the order as returned from
> > > getaddrinfo(3) until it can establish a TCP connection. Postfix
> > > will not reconnect when an establis
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 18:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 16:18 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Jim Popovitch:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > If given hostname that resolves to multiple A/ reco
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 16:18 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jim Popovitch:
> > Hello,
> >
> > If given hostname that resolves to multiple A/ records, will
> > smtpd_milters=inet:... cycle through all A/ records until if
> > finds a host that it can connect
Hello,
If given hostname that resolves to multiple A/ records, will
smtpd_milters=inet:... cycle through all A/ records until if finds a
host that it can connect to?
If so, does it make sense to reduce milter_connect_timeout to 10 or 15
seconds?
tia,
-Jim P.
On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 03:00 +0200, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see following lines in my log (pasted below). What do these errors
> mean? Is somebody sending garbage characters to my server?
Same here
May 24 00:10:18 mx1 postfix/trivial-rewrite[11417]: warning:
On January 31, 2019 11:10:50 AM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>while debian and ubuntu LTS have 2-year cycle and 5-year LTS support, yes,
>that can get near 8 years behind.
Debian has no strict release cycles, and Debian's LTS is based on several
factors including $$, time, and
22 matches
Mail list logo
