Re: Feature request: new parameter no_result_format for ldap and sql maps

Am 2012-09-14 17:24, schrieb Wietse Venema: Michael Storz: If a new parameter no_result_format would exist, we could define the ldap procedure with result_format = DUNNO no_result_format = 450 User not yet available in Exchange which is very straightforward and understandable. Except

Re: Feature request: new parameter no_result_format for ldap and sql maps

Am 2012-09-19 18:50, schrieb Wietse Venema: Coming back to the original problem, if you don't want to reject mail with user unknown when a user might still be in the process of being created, how are you going to deal with really unknown addresses, like a sender who mistyped something?

Re: Feature request: new parameter no_result_format for ldap and sql maps

Am 2012-09-19 21:41, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 07:13:49PM +0200, Michael Storz wrote: The consistency check requires that a user object is first (correctly) defined in OpenLDAP. Only then the second check looks for the correct definition in Active Directory

Re: Feature request: new parameter no_result_format for ldap and sql maps

Am 2012-09-19 22:27, schrieb Wietse Venema: Michael Storz: The consistency check requires that a user object is first (correctly) defined in OpenLDAP. Only then the second check looks for the correct definition in Active Directory. If it is not then we defer the email (we ... If a new user

Re: smtpd_relay_restrictions

Am 2012-09-27 23:38, schrieb Wietse Venema: Victor discussed smtpd_relay_restrictions 6 years, see http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-05/0598.html. The article also discussed a number of other ideas that have potential to increase the Postfix learning curve. I'll leave those

Re: smtpd_relay_restrictions

Am 2012-09-28 14:44, schrieb Wietse Venema: Michael Storz: If one of the permit-restrictions from smtpd_relay_restrictions fires which restriction will be evaluated next: - the first restriction of smtpd_recipient_restrictions or - the first restriction of smtpd_data_restrictions

Re: smtpd_relay_restrictions

Am 2012-09-28 18:39, schrieb Noel Jones: On 9/28/2012 8:37 AM, Michael Storz wrote: Am 2012-09-28 14:44, schrieb Wietse Venema: Michael Storz: If smtpd_relay_restrictions behaves like all the other restriction classes, that means after the permit has fired, the first restriction

Re: MX vs A records

Am 2012-10-11 13:36, schrieb Reindl Harald: i do this via mysql and a daily php-script which is removing error-transport if the domain get a MX record which is NOT fakemx.net currently the table has some thousand recors from the last 2 years Do you populate the database manually or

Re: Archiving mails based on subject - Was: Re: sometimes_bcc?

Am 2013-02-07 14:19, schrieb Noel Jones: On 2/7/2013 6:14 AM, Marcio Merlone wrote: it must be transparent, based on subject. So, to work on incoming and outgoing mails regardless of rcpts it has to be implemented on postifx. Can someone advice me on how can I solve this? Regardless of how

Re: postfix 2.8 and upper don't close connection with smtpd_proxy_filter

Am 2013-04-23 14:22, schrieb Wietse Venema: Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: smtp_get: timeout Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: dedi.ludosoft.org[127.0.0.1]: 421 4.4.2 dedi.ludosoft.org Error: timeout exceeded Apr 22 14:20:08 dedi postfix/smtpd[2974]: match_hostname:

Re: postscreen and Google

Am 2013-05-13 13:25, schrieb Timo Röhling: Am 2013-05-13 13:12, schrieb LuKreme: Other than disabling postscreen which I’m not going to do, is there anything I can do to whitelist all the google.com domains? Google recommends their SPF entries:

Re: How to configure fixed nexthop destination for smtp in master.cf

Am 2013-11-21 17:39, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:42:10PM +0100, Michael Storz wrote: I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map. There's your mistake. Set the nexthop

Re: How to configure fixed nexthop destination for smtp in master.cf

Am 2013-11-21 17:26, schrieb Manuel Bieling: On 2013.11.21 16:42:10 +0100, Michael Storz wrote: I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map. Since smtp has no special command-line option for this I

How to configure fixed nexthop destination for smtp in master.cf

I am trying to configure a fixed destination for a smtp transport in master.cf instead of confguring the destination in a transport_map. Since smtp has no special command-line option for this I suppose I have to specify a generic Postfix daemon option via -o. However, since all relevant

smtp_tls_security_level: verify versus secure

I do not understand the difference between verify and secure. If I assign the same value to smtp_tls_verify_cert_match and smtp_tls_secure_cert_match therefore not using the defualt values, is there still a difference between verify and secure or are they doing the same? Michael

Re: Working around recalcitrant ISP wrt rDNS

Am 2015-02-05 14:50, schrieb Микаел Бак: Hi there, On 02/04/2015 11:06 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: the truth is that a xx.xx.xx.xx-static-dsl.isp.tld is not a mailserver just becaus eit contains the word static - in fact most of them are ordinary office dsl lines with clients behind True.

Re: What is HyperSendmail v2007.08??

Am 2015-03-16 16:36, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30:00PM +0200, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: While running my mail server I noticed that couple mail servers on the path identify themselves as HyperSendmail v2007.08(mta??). Anyone heard about such a software? What is this

Re: How to allow each user on an Ubuntu server use his/her google email and password to send the email via google smtp?

Am 2015-03-18 18:49, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:31:40AM -0600, @lbutlr wrote: Gmail does not restrict the from address in outgoing emails. In fact, when my server is offline, i send admin warnings via gmail that are ?from? my postmaster account. Your gmail account

Re: postfix and multiple TLS certificates (SNI support?)

Am 2015-12-16 16:26, schrieb Alice Wonder: But with port 25, certificate authorities do not matter, so an admin running the same smtp server on multiple hostnames can generate a new self-signed cert at no cost every time they add a domain that resolves to that IP address. Thus even with

Re: postfix and multiple TLS certificates (SNI support?)

Am 2015-12-15 12:22, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org: Michael Str?der: Sebastian Nielsen wrote: > Yes. > Its just a draft. Everything starts with a draft. > Which certificate should the server use for the encrypted transaction, even if > we use SNI? > emailservice1.com or emailservice2.com? The

Re: postfix and multiple TLS certificates (SNI support?)

Am 2015-12-11 20:33, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:50:40AM -0600, Brian Sebby wrote: other.mail.server:smtp inetn - n - 0 smtpd -o myhostname=other.mail.server -o smtp_tls_cert_file=/path/to/certfile.pem -o

Re: postfix and multiple TLS certificates (SNI support?)

Am 2015-12-15 15:48, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org: Wietse: This session has multiple recipients, in different domains that have the same MX host. Whose SNI [domain] shall be used? Michael Storz: [Examples that do not use SNI] Nice try, but that did not answer the question. On the other

Re: postfix and multiple TLS certificates (SNI support?)

Am 2015-12-15 20:36, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 04:34:58PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: So, we've managed to hold off on offering SNI support for a decade since TLS was integrated into Postfix 2.2. I just wanted to see whether anyone still wanted it in Postfix, but

Re: SMTP STS and policy delegation for smtp *client* ?

Am 2016-03-21 20:09, schrieb Per Thorsheim: Den 21.03.2016 18.47, skrev Viktor Dukhovni: On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:18 PM, David Schweikert wrote: I wonder what the Postfix community thinks or plans to do according to this standard that is being written:

Re: SMTP STS and policy delegation for smtp *client* ?

Am 2016-03-21 17:18, schrieb David Schweikert: Hi, I wonder what the Postfix community thinks or plans to do according to this standard that is being written: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts/?include_text=1 I personally find this quite interesting. What I wonder is, if

Re: Check outgoing emails not using TLS

Am 2020-04-06 23:53, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Dominic Raferd wrote: > whose output you'd send to the attached Perl script. On my system for > example: > > # bzip2 -dcf $(ls -tr /var/log/maillog*) | perl collate | perl tlstype.pl I should perhaps

Re: check_recipient_mx_access issues. Don't know how to fix this

Am 2021-06-10 02:20, schrieb Russell Jones: Hi all, I have check_recipient_mx_access setup to route mail for certain providers through a relay. This has been working well, until I discovered it is breaking delivery to local users that get CC'd in an email that is being routed through this

Re: check_recipient_mx_access issues. Don't know how to fix this

Am 2021-06-10 20:57, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni: On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 04:30:11PM +0200, Michael Storz wrote: The next possibility would be to split the email into emails with recipients from the same domain. Unfortunately, Postfix (currently) has no way of configuring a relay host

[pfx] Re: Are multiple white spaces allowed in a date in headers?

Am 2024-01-30 23:56, schrieb Jonas Vautherin via Postfix-users: ... Received: from mx5 ([15.102.1.34]) by compute1.internal (LMTPProxy); Fri, 05 Jan 2024 16:48:38 -0500 Received: from mx5.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id

[pfx] Re: Are multiple white spaces allowed in a date in headers?

Am 2024-01-31 15:09, schrieb David Bürgin via Postfix-users: Michael Storz: FWS =   ([*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP) /  obs-FWS A FWS can be a single WSP or a folded line. Therefore the date "Fri,  5 Jan 2024 16:48:37 -0500 (EST)" is syntactically incorrect, because there can b