Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote
> Michael Grimm via Postfix-users:
>> Very recently I re-enabled IPv6 on my servers, and removed my
>> 'inet_protocols=ipv4' from main.cf and did *not* add 'inet_protocols=all'
>> because I checked for the default setting:
>>
Michael Grimm via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I am running postfix 3.8.4 on FreeBSD 14.0-STABLE and recompile postfix (and
> all my other ports) on a regular basis (by poudriere).
>
>
> Very recently I re-enabled IPv6 on my servers, and removed my
> 'inet_protocols=ip
Hi,
I am running postfix 3.8.4 on FreeBSD 14.0-STABLE and recompile postfix (and
all my other ports) on a regular basis (by poudriere).
Very recently I re-enabled IPv6 on my servers, and removed my
'inet_protocols=ipv4' from main.cf and did *not* add 'inet_protocols=all'
because I checked
??? via Postfix-users:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> $ man 5 postconf | grep ^inet_protocols
> inet_protocols (default: see 'postconf -d output')
> $ man 5 postconf | grep -F "see 'postconf"
> inet_protocols (default: s
$ man 5 postconf | grep ^inet_protocols
inet_protocols (default: see 'postconf -d output')
$ man 5 postconf | grep -F "see 'postconf"
inet_protocols (default: see 'postconf -d output')
meta_directory (default: see 'postconf -d' output)
respectful_logging (default: see 'postconf
On 2/3/22 9:28 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Multiple transports can use the same policy table:
relay-test4 unix - - n - - smtp
...
-o inet_protocols=ipv4
-o
smtp_tls_policy_maps=${def_db_type}:${conf_dir}/test/relay_tls_policy
relay-test6
each with its own "inet_protocols"
setting.
> entries is 'relay_tls_policy' take usual form, per
> http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#client_tls_policy, e.g.
>
> [hostname.example.com]:25 securematch=hostname.example.com
> ...
Multip
.
[hostname.example.com]:25 securematch=hostname.example.com
...
for the relay, i can lockdown transport to a specific inet protocol,
-o inet_protocols=ipv4
but that applies to all hosts in the map
i haven't found (yet) a doc'd example of spec'ing per-host
On 11.04.21 18:18, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
FYI, t-online is often discussed on "mailop" mailing list as their criteria
for rejecting e-mails are sometimes unusual.
For example they may block IP addresses that didn't successfully send mail
to them previously, and you may need to request to manually
On 2021-04-02 13:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 2.04.2021 o godz. 13:41:40 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
using their L2 and L3 lists shouldn't be used as exclusive spam signs,
but
their L1 list should be quite reliable.
Their L2 and L3 are just indicators that IP comes from problematic
Dnia 11.04.2021 o godz. 14:43:27 Benny Pedersen pisze:
>
> t-online blocks #metoo
FYI, t-online is often discussed on "mailop" mailing list as their criteria
for rejecting e-mails are sometimes unusual.
For example they may block IP addresses that didn't successfully send mail
to them
On 2021-04-02 21:52, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2021-04-01 11:02, Michael Grimm wrote:
Background of my question:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL)
started to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with
being blocklisted (see
On 2021-04-01 18:17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
master.cf:
smtp unix ... smtp
smtp4 unix ... smtp -o inet_protocols=ipv4
smtp6 unix ... smtp -o inet_protocols=ipv6
transport:
# IPv6 slow or rejected by exampl4.net
example4.net smtp4
# IPv4 slow or rejected by example6
On 2021-04-01 11:02, Michael Grimm wrote:
Background of my question:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL)
started to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with
being blocklisted (see
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209),
Dnia 2.04.2021 o godz. 13:41:40 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
>
> using their L2 and L3 lists shouldn't be used as exclusive spam signs, but
> their L1 list should be quite reliable.
>
> Their L2 and L3 are just indicators that IP comes from problematic source
> (e.g. spam-friendly company/ISP
Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
blocklisted (see
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209), although
my IP
On 4/1/21 12:38 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
>>
>> One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
>> to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
>> blocklisted (see
>>
Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
>
> One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
> to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
> blocklisted (see
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209), although
>
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 12:02 PM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
>
> But it is good to know that smtp_address_preference might help me with other
> ISP blocking my IPv4.
For such cases I use the transport table:
master.cf:
smtp unix ... smtp
smtp4 unix ... smtp -o inet
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Grimm:
>> On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>>>> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
>>>
>>> No.
> You can specity a prefer
Michael Grimm:
> On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
> >> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
> >
> > No.
> [..]
> > No. See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smt
On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
>
> No.
[..]
> No. See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_balance_inet_protocols
Thanks for your clarification and regards,
Michael
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
No.
> What I mean is, does postfix follow the order of the following settings:
>
> inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
> inet_protocols = ipv6, ipv4
No.
> Would the latter
Hi,
is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
What I mean is, does postfix follow the order of the following settings:
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
inet_protocols = ipv6, ipv4
Would the latter definition tell postfix to try ipv6 first and ipv4 second?
Thanks and regards,
Michael
24 matches
Mail list logo
