Looks like Postfix violates this MUST:
The AUTH command is not permitted during a mail transaction.
An AUTH command issued during a mail transaction MUST be
rejected with a 503 reply.
mail from:
250 2.1.0 Ok
auth plain XXX
235 2.0.0 Authentication successful
On 9.4.2012, at 16.25, Wietse Venema wrote:
Timo Sirainen:
There's a problem with aliases that LMTP server can't solve. Lets
say I have two aliases:
info@domain - shared@domain
sales@domain - shared@domain
The LMTP server sees RCPT TO:shared@domain for mails that arrive
to both of them
On 10.4.2012, at 19.28, Wietse Venema wrote:
Timo Sirainen:
I wonder if careful use of the DSN extension would help. With DSN,
the SMTP/LMTP client sends the original recipient with:
RCPT TO:final-rcpt ORCPT=rfc822;orig-rcpt ...
Does Postfix already send this if LMTP server advertises
On 9.4.2012, at 6.06, /dev/rob0 wrote:
- is there a particular reason why these headers are not already
an option via lmtp (aside from nobody asking for or seeing the
need previously). Is there an architectural or conceptual reason
why these headers should not be added via an lmtp connection?
On 4.4.2012, at 10.31, Γεώργιος Δεδούσης wrote:
Wietse, please comment, don't you think that a public repo, showing each
source code change would be useful for Postfix? An issue reporting system too?
Issue trackers seem to be kind of a waste of time for projects with few
developers:
a) You
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 07:19 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
It is clear. getpwnam_r() returns 0 both on success and user not
found, you just need to check if the result is NULL or not. If
it returns anything else than 0 it's a transient error. If the
NSS code internally messes this up, that's
On 27.4.2011, at 18.04, Wietse Venema wrote:
I think the POSIX API works in all OSes commonly used nowadays. FreeBSD
5.1, NetBSD 3.0, OpenBSD 4.4, Solaris 5(?), OS X (some version), Linux
for last 5+ years.
I wrote some wrappers for these and people haven't complained about them
much yet
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 11:17 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I too would have expected a new IMAP extension that would allow the IMAP
client to ask the IMAP server to post the message. I don't know why this
route was not taken.
Lemonade group discussed this in their push vs pull arguments. I
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 12:13 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-04-12 12:03 PM, Simon Waters wrote:
Some days I think starting again from scratch with software would be a good
idea, then I remember how quickly I can code
Timo (dovecot author) has expressed interest in maybe someday
On 8.3.2010, at 1.26, Wietse Venema wrote:
smtp_address_preference (default: ipv6)
Probably the whole reason for this thread was because of me. I used to have a
working IPv6 setup, and then switched to a different ISP and just copied all my
configs. Everything worked fine for a few days so I
On 8.3.2010, at 2.22, Wietse Venema wrote:
Of course I fixed the problem immediately as I found out about
it, but I'm just wondering how many other such setups there are
that break once IPv6 becomes more common. Should this setting
default to any? Is there really even a reason for it to be
On 2.3.2010, at 9.18, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
OK - I'm an idiot. I'll just admit that up front and get it out of the way.
Now that that's settled, what is the difference between SSL and TLS
in a MUA - particularly Thunderbird - in a Postfix context?
http://wiki.dovecot.org/SSL tries to
On 13.2.2010, at 0.41, Victor Duchovni wrote:
No, this is largely irrelevant. What matters is the IMAP performance
they expect, that IMAP servers are reasonably CPU and memory intensive.
From what I've seen is that IMAP servers normally take less than 1% CPU load
(mainly Dovecot, but I'd
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:27 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho:
Is there an unofficial Postfix VCS repository? I believe there is not an
official one, is there a reason for that? I'm asking because I want to
keep track of what is going on 2.7 development. Checking the
On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:16 PM, mouss wrote:
- every time I hear zlib, someting like vulnerability hits my
ears.
Well, you inspired me to finally implement a prevention method against
almost all vulnerabilities there could be in zlib: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/b359aac78f92
I had
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 20:53 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix 2.6 will pass the TLS is active flag. I have changed the
API so that we no longer need to make code changes in every SASL
plugin when another attribute is added.
It works with smtps but doesn't work with STARTTLS, because
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 00:08 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:04:50AM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Oh. That's actually it. Dovecot is listening on private/auth, but Postfix
is connecting to private/dovecot. But what is listening on private/dovecot
then? You've
On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Juha Pahkala wrote:
Apr 24 15:42:50 server postfix/smtpd[8126]: fatal: no SASL
authentication mechanisms
..
auth default:
mechanisms: plain login
So Dovecot is advertising PLAIN and LOGIN mechanisms to Postfix.
client:
path:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
smtpd_sasl_path = private/dovecot
..
I can see the private/auth socket created when dovecot starts, with
postfix:postfix permissions. Also, netstat shows it:
bash:# netstat -ln | grep dovecot
unix 2 [ ACC ] STREAM LISTENING
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other than that I haven't yet tested it.
It anyway looks like sending the SSL/TLS state requires an additional
parameter to
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:18:01PM -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
In some setups it's useful for authentication handling to know if the
connection is SSL/TLS secured. The patch below should tell this to
Dovecot. It compiles, but other
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's basically the same thing as disable plaintext authentication,
except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis
rather than globally. There are probably some other use cases that I've
heard before but can't
Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:11 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Timo Sirainen:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 16:49 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's basically the same thing as disable plaintext authentication,
except on a per-user (or per-domain, or per-source-IP-range) basis
rather than globally
23 matches
Mail list logo
