teste
--
Atenciosamente,
Rodrigo da Silva Cunha
test
--
Atenciosamente,
Rodrigo da Silva Cunha
mro...@insiberia.net:
> On 2016-09-15 13:55, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
> > mro...@insiberia.net:
> >> On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> >> > Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
> >> >> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
> >> >>
On 2016-09-15 13:55, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
mro...@insiberia.net:
On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
>> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
>> message_size_limit are?
>>
>> By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB,
mro...@insiberia.net:
> On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> > Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
> >> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
> >> message_size_limit are?
> >>
> >> By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
> >>
> >> I think sendmail has a
On 2016-09-14 23:34, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
message_size_limit are?
By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size -
that
seems
>Of course, because the content_filter is defined just for the port
Ok, Thanks understood.
Regards
Patrick
Thank you Viktor, with your configuration changes now it works again!
Indeed, Exchange is running on Windows Server 2003 R2 and an upgrade is
overdue. After two years of delay, finally it will get upgraded in two
months.
--
View this message in context:
On 2016-09-15 07:19, mro...@insiberia.net wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
message_size_limit are?
By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size -
that seems crazy, but maybe I don't understand the risks well
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:36:43AM -0500, postadmin wrote:
> Remote Server/Client with public IP is configured with the following
> transport:
>
> "domainofserver.org smtp:domainofserver.org:587"
You're providing submission service to suitably authorized clients.
Presumably via SASL,
Viktor
I apologize for the confusion.
An overview of the smtp connection/transaction is as follows:
Remote Server/Client with public IP is configured with the following
transport:
"domainofserver.org smtp:domainofserver.org:587"
Mail from Remote Server/Client is accepted by
On 09/15/16 06:49, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Phil Stracchino:
>> Well, it's supposed to Just Work if they're using libmysqlclient. I'm
>> not sure where to get the information of NOT using libmysqlclient, other
>> than just searching likely locations.
>
> FYI, Postfix uses libmysqlclient. So what's
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:23:17PM -0500, postadmin wrote:
> Hoping to clarify if remote transport mappings can be restricted.
This sentence employes unusual terminology. It is unlikely to be
understood here. Please explain yourself more clearly, avoiding
dense jargon. Nobody on this list
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:51:11AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stephan Seitz:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 06:49:08AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >FYI, Postfix uses libmysqlclient. So what's up with not reading
> > >the default config file?
> >
> > Can it be the usual chroot problem?
>
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:37:47AM -0700, fleon wrote:
> After two years of successful emails sent by postfix through our exchange
> 2007 server i have started having problems. I did update debian 7 to debian
> 8, so i don't know what postfix/openssl version i had back then.
In Debian 8 you
Stephan Seitz:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 06:49:08AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >FYI, Postfix uses libmysqlclient. So what's up with not reading
> >the default config file?
>
> Can it be the usual chroot problem?
Postfix normally opens tables before chroot() and before dropping
root
Ond?ej Lyson?k:
> Hi,
>
> I need some help configuring canonical maps.
>
> Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of
> these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain).
> Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses
Hi,
I need some help configuring canonical maps.
Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of
these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain).
Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses
in the following order:
For additional clarification, i was able to telnet to our exhange server and
authenticate to it just fine:
telnet mar-exch01 25
Connected to mar-exch01.mydomain.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mar-exch01.mydomain.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Thu, 15
Sep 2016 08:21:03 -0400
EHLO
After two years of successful emails sent by postfix through our exchange
2007 server i have started having problems. I did update debian 7 to debian
8, so i don't know what postfix/openssl version i had back then.
Postfix itself gives out these errors:
Sep 14 11:52:52 mar-zabbix
Hi Wietse,
I noticed an error in the patch. Attached you'll find the corrected version.
Thanks,
Roel
diff -pruN a/src/util/dict_union.c b/src/util/dict_union.c
--- a/src/util/dict_union.c 2014-10-21 01:53:04.0 +0200
+++ b/src/util/dict_union.c 2016-09-15 13:14:54.961550046
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 06:49:08AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
FYI, Postfix uses libmysqlclient. So what's up with not reading
the default config file?
Can it be the usual chroot problem?
Stephan
--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net |
| Public Keys:
Wietse Venema writes:
> while investigation unexpected bounces, I noticed that the unionmap did not
> handle errors of submaps properly. If a submap generated an error, the
> unionmap would not.
Cool. Can you also check how pipemap handles this case?
I checked and pipemap shows correct
Phil Stracchino:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> On 09/14/16 19:29, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Perhaps Postfix needs to try to explicitly load the default config
> location when no override is set.
> >>>
> >>> How do we do that, without hard-coding '/etc/my.cnf' into Postfix?
> >>>
Roel van Meer:
> Hi,
>
> while investigation unexpected bounces, I noticed that the unionmap did not
> handle errors of submaps properly. If a submap generated an error, the
> unionmap would not.
Cool. Can you also check how pipemap handles this case?
Wietse
> I tested this with an
Hi,
while investigation unexpected bounces, I noticed that the unionmap did not
handle errors of submaps properly. If a submap generated an error, the
unionmap would not.
I tested this with an LDAP map, where the LDAP server was *not* reachable.
Configuring virtual_alias_maps as:
Am 15.09.2016 um 07:19 schrieb mro...@insiberia.net:
> Hi, I'm wondering what the downside of setting a large
> message_size_limit are?
>
> By "large" I mean 30MB, 40MB, 50MB
>
> I think sendmail has a default of no restriction for message size - that
> seems crazy, but maybe I don't understand
El 14/09/16 a las 11:38, Angel L. Mateo escribió:
Hi,
I'm obfuscated trying to configure a server for a catch-all domain
(all mail directed to that domain delivered to a single mailbox).
My problem is that I want all mail received for @mydomain.com to be
delivered to a single locally
28 matches
Mail list logo
