On 2021-05-15 04:30, J Doe wrote:
1. Why was the magic value of "ORIGINATING" used in the Digital
Ocean example ?
2. Can I allow the default value of: milter_macro_daemon_name to
be used _WITHOUT_ affecting OpenDKIM and ClamAV ?
in opendkim.conf use this in MTA
MTA=ORIGINATING
>
> I've done a terrible job of explaining this, partly because I don't
> fully understand and also don't have all the facts.
>
Try to gather as much information as possible and draw a diagram on a piece
of paper)
>
> We are trying to provide mail filtering using postfix/amavis for a
> company
On 2021-05-14 at 22:30:18 UTC-0400 (Fri, 14 May 2021 22:30:18 -0400)
J Doe
is rumored to have said:
My questions are:
1. Why was the magic value of "ORIGINATING" used in the Digital
Ocean example ?
It's not 'magic' but it is the value that Postfix uses as an example in
master.cf.
Hello,
I have a question regarding configuring submission with Postfix.
I am dusting off a configuration for a server that has been functioning
well for the past three years. When I set up submission, I used the
example from Digital Ocean here:
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 12:31 AM IL Ka wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If now a user of such a domain requests that he can be blocked
>> from receiving email from my domain, due to abuse of my service,
>> would be a simple REJECT of his email address in the same
>> transport map list be sufficient, or does
>
>
>
> If now a user of such a domain requests that he can be blocked
> from receiving email from my domain, due to abuse of my service,
> would be a simple REJECT of his email address in the same
> transport map list be sufficient, or does postfix may get confused?
>
>
transport(5) can have
Hi,
I am planning to offer a new small email service and decided
to only allow for now that outbound traffic can only reach
a couple of domains which are included, as understood, in
a transport map list, where the domains are labeled as OK.
If now a user of such a domain requests that he can be
On 2021-05-14 5:17 p.m., Wietse Venema wrote:
> J Doe:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been experimenting with DSN's regarding delayed e-mails.
>>
>> My current config is:
>>
>> /etc/postfix/main.cf
>> delay_notice_recipient = postmaster
>>
>> notify_classes = delay
>>
>>
J Doe:
> Hello,
>
> I have been experimenting with DSN's regarding delayed e-mails.
>
> My current config is:
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf
> delay_notice_recipient = postmaster
>
> notify_classes = delay
>
> delay_warning_time = 15m
> confirm_delay_cleared
Hello,
I have been experimenting with DSN's regarding delayed e-mails.
My current config is:
/etc/postfix/main.cf
delay_notice_recipient = postmaster
notify_classes = delay
delay_warning_time = 15m
confirm_delay_cleared = yes
. . .
... and
On 14.05.21 10:06, Markus E. wrote:
I need some help here. My system apparently just accepted a messege
with no valid sender address.
May 14 05:32:43 mx postfix/qmgr[22592]: 4FhDcV6fwfzxNc: from=<>, size=806,
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
this is valid sender address and RFCs require to allow
On 13.05.21 19:07, Maurizio Caloro wrote:
And please why this will receive as SPF Fail - not authorized.
This email are realy important !!
May 13 18:42:43 nmail postfix/smtpd[15632]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
ld4prd5.mx.csod.com[208.185.235.45]: 550 5.7.23 : Recipient
address rejected: Message
Hi!
I need some help here. My system apparently just accepted a messege with
no valid sender address.
Logfile:
May 14 05:32:30 mx postfix/postscreen[22902]: CONNECT from [202.74.56.X]:49082
to [172.105.87.X]:25
May 14 05:32:36 mx postfix/postscreen[22902]: PASS NEW [202.74.56.X]:49082
May
13 matches
Mail list logo
