Hi all,
Just wondering whether somebody's having a setup where authentication is
required for relay access with an extra authorization check. Summerizing:
1. User wants to send a mail to postfix which needs to be relayed
2. So, user identifies him/herself to postfix and authenticates
3. After
There at this time no built-in access controls based directly on the
SASL user name. You have the following options:
- Restrict one or more sender addresses to specific authenticated
users via smtpd_sender_login_maps + reject_sender_login_mismatch,
and *then* apply access
My question, is this intended behaviour? Did anyone notice this
behavious as well?
Yes, this is documented intended behaviour. See, ldap_table(5):
%[1-9] The patterns %1, %2, ... %9 are replaced by
the corresponding most significant component
Hi all,
I'm succesfully using the patterns %1, %2, etc. in my LDAP tables for
virtual_alias_maps and virtual_mailbox_maps. However, in the table for
virtual_mailbox_domains the patterns don't seem to be expanded.
Tested with Postfix as daemon and postfix -q, using Postfix 2.5.5-1.1 on
Debian 5.0
Hi Victor,
Perfect, thanks a lot! This is the information I was looking for.
Durk
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Durk Strooisma wrote:
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
queue IDs were generated randomly, which means they should be
practically unique.
Postfix behaves as documented. Please point out where the
Hi all,
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using the
same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that queue IDs
were generated randomly, which means they should be practically unique.
Okay, so this could be a wrong assumption... My question is, how
