Sorry for replying to an old thread.
As a few on this list may recall, it is 25 years ago today that the
"IBM secure mailer" had its public beta release. This was accompanied
by a nice article in the New York Times business section.
I just wanted to say THANK YOU to you and any other
>> Does anyone have any suggestions for a tool for filtering out click
>> trackers from links in email bodies and rewriting the links without
>> the click tracking?
> Anything that does this will also break DKIM, if the email has it
> (which many do). But perhaps you are confident that your users
> No idea. It if works, great. Otherwise, try compiling with this
> workaround:
It works! Thanks to postfix and easy "make upgrade" the migration took
only seconds. I didn't even had to clear caches (tls,
recipient_verification) or such. Cool! Case closed.
Btw - nice for me to see, that
> That is a compiler bug. 620 static ATTR_OVER_TIME time_table[] = { 621
> 7 + VAR_MILT_CONN_TIME, DEF_MILT_CONN_TIME, 0, 1, 0,
> VAR_MILT_CONN_TIME is a constant ("milter_connect_timeout") therefore
> 7 + VAR_MILT_CONN_TIME ("connect_timeout") is a constant.
Good hint, thank you. I was able to
> Try: make makefiles ...optional arguments... make WARN= Sorry, I
> haven't built with /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc for ~10 years. Wietse
No problem. Seems like it's time for a change. After emptying WARN it
looked promising, but then the build broke here:
"milter.c", line 621: non-constant
Hello,
I'm sorry for line breaks and showing the wrong output. It's not easy to
get that information here. Hope this will be readable.
### make makefiles finished; performing make ###
rm -f meta/main.cf.proto && ln -f conf/main.cf meta/main.cf.proto
rm -f meta/master.cf.proto
Hi postfix-users,
today I have the pleasure to update sparc some machines, that haven't
been touched for more than 2.5 years :/
The systems use sunstudio compiler. Openssl, bind, ... went fine but
now, as it comes to postfix, I'm failing. The build scripts are in use
since long time, and worked
Hi,
> I have a situation where my primary/final MX server will be down for
> an indefinite period of time, possibly up to a week. During that time
> I would like to have the secondary MX server to keep every message
> queued, and keep on retrying, without ever "timing out" and without
> sending
we're monitoring the amount of active smtpd processes to make sure, that
we do not reach the max-proc limit from master.cf.
The number I found most useful to indicate something was going wrong
is the number of messages in the queue. For the servers I manage,
normally that number would be
I want to TEMPORARILY (I hope) whitelist redac...@mg.pluspora.com as a
sender address as long as the mail is being sent by mailgun.us.
How would you do it?
You could add a check_sender_access which returns OK for
mg.pluspora.com before the reject_unknown_sender_domain in
Jul 19 13:40:39 mx31 postfix-p25/smtpd[96635]: NOQUEUE:
client=mail.rosedale.ca[66.135.118.147]
Jul 19 13:40:39 mx31 postfix-p25/smtpd[96635]: lost connection after
DATA (0 bytes) from mail.rosedale.ca[66.135.118.147]
Jul 19 13:40:39 mx31 postfix-p25/smtpd[96635]: disconnect from
Confirmed by my own test - sorry for noise on this list:
Jul 8 10:23:14 mx3 postfix-cluster/smtpd[3564]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from ipservice-047-071-140-188.pools.arcor-ip.net[47.71.140.188]: 554
5.7.1 : Relay access denied; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
I have to admit that it's an old
= permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination
Am I right?
Thank you in advance
Jan
Am 08.07.2018 um 10:04 schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
Hi,
I was wondering why the following error is returned as tempfail:
Jul 8 09:49:03 mx3 postfix-cluster/smtpd[3420]: connect from
hwsrv-20
Hi,
I was wondering why the following error is returned as tempfail:
Jul 8 09:49:03 mx3 postfix-cluster/smtpd[3420]: connect from
hwsrv-20.hostwindsdns.com[108.174.196.241]
Jul 8 09:49:03 mx3 postfix-cluster/smtpd[3420]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from
postfix is configured as relay server. Other systems relay with
postfix. Here i want to allow for a specific group of hosts, when they
use a specific mail from address only a few specific destination
domains. Other hosts should not be bothered. This is only a need to
limit a group of hosts
So the thing to check with the author of postfwd2 is what's going on
with the regular expression on line 1168.
That is a scary one. It seems like an attempt to express all of the
leniencies in a config format in a single regex, where a preliminary
canonicalization (reducing all runs of
Am 21.09.2015 um 08:25 schrieb Kianoosh Kashefi:
I use Postfix with Postfwd as policy service. and I want to limit all
outgoing messages with exceptions for several SASL users with HOLD
verdict. I'm new to postfwd so I need configuration example for
rate-limiting with HOLD verdict (for
This issue I have is knowing how to read any of the attributes listed here
www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#protocol
I have tried using $attr = @_; and local(*attr) =@ _; to retreive the
variables but $attr always remains empty. I have also set up the script to
write the contents and
With postfwd you could use the following rule:
id=RCPTCNT
action=PREPEND X-RCPT-COUNT: $$recipient_count
or something like that
id=RCPTCNT01
recipient_count=200
action=PREPEND X-RCPT-COUNT: RED
id=RCPTCNT02
recipient_count=100
action=PREPEND X-RCPT-COUNT: YELLOW
Please
Dear postfix users,
today we discovered a problem with one of our mailrelays. Maillog
contains lines like the following:
Oct 23 10:53:00 rv-smtpext-201 postfix/pickup[11413]: [ID 947731
mail.warning] warning: maildrop/6B8F696F6: error writing 2737698C0: no
recipients specified
Looking
Oct 23 10:53:00 rv-smtpext-201 postfix/pickup[11413]: [ID 947731
mail.warning] warning: maildrop/6B8F696F6: error writing 2737698C0: no
recipients specified
The Postfix sendmail command awas invoked with no recipients on the
command line, and (with -t) with no recipients in the message header.
Viktor:
TOO MUCH MANUAL QUEUE MANAGEMENT.
Wietse:
So I speculate that what you see was the result of a postsuper -r
race condition.
Thanks! That was it. A colleague told me, that the queue on that system
and a subsequent content filter had been congested and users were
waiting
The recipient attribute is available in the RCPT TO stage. It is
also available in the DATA and END-OF-MESSAGE stages if Postfix
accepted only one recipient for the current message.
You can use the instance attribute to collect the list of recipients at
RCPT TO stage. That information can be
Or what the limitations are.
Note that you can not return different results for different
recipients at data or end_of_data stage. You can only pass or reject
the whole mail at all.
p.s. the policy server example included in the postfix docs would break.
substr(0,512) is to small for a
How exactly does one disconnect from stdin? I mean other than by
calling exit() ?
Exiting is sufficient.
The SMTPD_POLICY_README file should be edited in a way so as to
make that clear. The current wording is quite entirely perplexing.
Disconnect is quite obviously the wrong word to use
I'm using postfix-2.10.3 on fedora20 with sqlgrey, distributed across
three separate servers through mysql. I've configured it using:
check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:2501 http://127.0.0.1:2501
in main.cf http://main.cf. However, this doesn't provide fault
protection in the same way as
May 8 15:50:28 s8 postfix/smtpd[5603]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
localhost[::1]: 454 4.7.1 szab...@gmail.com: Relay access denied;
from=mailman-boun...@hostlocal.com to=szab...@gmail.com
proto=ESMTP helo=s8.hostlocal.com
Seems like the ipv6 loopback address is not part of mynetworks.
Also, note that the carat (^) anchor isn't necessary. The header fields
you're testing for are in the left most position. Thus no reason to
left anchor your expression.
Of course there is.
- Anchored expressions are executed faster (the parser has to check the
pattern only against the
Otherwise, postfwd and the like could be configured for a rate limit
of zero (can't send mail).
Sorry, for the late answer, but no zero rate limits are required here.
With postfwd simply use:
id=SASLDROP
sasl_username==barrak
sasl_username==vladimir
sasl_username==mao
- encrypted filesystem
- SSL or TLS only for SMTP and IMAPS
- Talking only to some known other same-secured servers
*Thank you for any infos*
If you really need security, do not forget to use a safe source for your
mailrouting information (e.g. ipaddresses or *really* secured dns - do
not
I've started to runnning postfwd2 on my server, with aproximately
up to 500 mails daily (and 80% spams :) ). I plan to use it to a
domain with 30 000 daily emails. Does anybody have postfwd2 applied
for similar domain ? What about huge dns count for RBL ?
I use it since years with
The way I read his request is that he wants to forward non-spam
only, and is looking for a Postfix solution that supports this.
The best proposal I can come up with is a Milter that triggers on
headers added by has spam filter, and that adds a second
recipient only if the mail does not
Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
achieve the same thing?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
Not, if the required headers are added later on by a content_filter.
Am 21.09.2013 15:17, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
Would the single, existing instance with 'smtp_header_checks' not
achieve the same thing?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_header_checks
Not, if the required headers are added later on by a content_filter.
Just to be clear. What I
As I read it, 'smtp_header_checks' provides a way to do header checks only on
messages that are leaving the system, leaving local delivery unaffected?
You are right. It should achieve the same.
So, there is nothing i can do ?
If you don't need TLS for yahoo you can disable it for that server. Take
a look at
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps
Sep 12 04:57:06 nudin1 postfix/smtp[29110]: connect to
freenet.de[62.104.23.42]:25: Connection refused
connection refused is a network problem, probably a firewall block.
Perhaps your ISP doesn't allow you to run a mail server?
Something is wrong with your DNS resolution.
As attachments get larger, and end users use email rather than ftp for file
transfer for convenience sake, a UDP implementation, perhaps using UDP as a
data streaming channel could become a very useful configuration, and the
transfer speed over high latency links (think satellite etc) could
How can I configure my primary server to accept connections/mail from the
secondary server but still refuse connections/mail from all other cable
connections.
I use TLS client certificates for these purposes*
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html
* Not for backup to primary mx, but
Am 09.07.2013 23:56, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
How can I configure my primary server to accept connections/mail from the
secondary server but still refuse connections/mail from all other cable
connections.
I use TLS client certificates for these purposes*
http://www.postfix.org
3. I could also write a policy server. Is there already a policy
server that's as simple as blocking IPs based on a ACL. But then, I'll
have to run a local mysql server also.
postfwd has an option to use a table, which will be re-read on every
request. Look for lfile or ltable at
Am 16.06.2013 05:00, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:58:27AM +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
The openssl update from 0.9.8k to 1.0.1e solved the client certificate
issue. Unfortunately now we see another problem with the outgoing
instance, trying to send to another partner
The sender should replace their certificate, it is not compliant with
TLSv1. This too may take time.
I never enabled ask_ccert on port 25, I had used 587 for that (on a
machine that nevertheless was not an MSA), and clients with special
access configured via ccerts had to use a transport
# openssl
./Configure \
--prefix=${BASE}/openssl \
--openssldir=${BASE}/openssl \
solaris-sparcv9-cc
make; make install
# postfix
MYLIBS=-R${BASE}/openssl/lib -R/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.7/lib
-R/usr/local/lib -L${BASE}/openssl/lib -L/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.7/lib
...@example.com... Sender ok
RCPT TO:xxx@example.com
RENEGOTIATING
[CTRL+C]
Am 16.06.2013 01:58, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
# openssl
./Configure \
--prefix=${BASE}/openssl \
--openssldir=${BASE}/openssl \
solaris-sparcv9-cc
make; make install
# postfix
MYLIBS=-R${BASE
Hi,
currently we are experiencing problems with an incoming SMTP/TLS
connection. Remote side is an Ironport device, we are using postfix
2.8.13 on solaris 10. The problem exists only for incoming mails
(ironport to postfix), the other direction works fine. It happens for
both opportunistic (which
Jun 14 10:24:47 rv-smtpext-101 postfix/smtpd[5847]: [ID 197553
mail.info] certificate verification failed for
mail.dgverlag.de[145.253.80.6]: untrusted issuer
/C=IE/O=Baltimore/OU=CyberTrust/CN=Baltimore CyberTrust Root
Why do you check client certificates?
Because we authenticate/whitelist
Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
It looks your OpenSSL library does not enable this via
OpenSSL_add_ssl_algorithms().
The use of certificates with signature algorithms other than MD5
and SHA-1 is supposed to be negotiated via TLSv1.2, plain SSLv3/TLSv1
do not have a way to
Am 08.05.2013 01:58, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
On 2013-05-07 23:00:01 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Yes this is possible with postfwd. The policy delegation protocol
contains reverse_client_name and client_name, which can be used within
postfwd rulesets.
Example:
id=COMBO01
Is it possible to use reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname-like
feature as part of scoring with blacklist checking? I think
policyd-weight supported that. I consider using postfwd.
Yes this is possible with postfwd. The policy delegation protocol
contains reverse_client_name and
Is it possible that the key is being exposed not from the
postscreen_dnsbl_sites line but from a line also in main.cf which says
the following?
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_rbl_client hidden-key.zen.dq.spamhaus.net
Use rbl_reply_maps and a text without $rbl_domain:
Very well. If adding the IP address to mynetworks provides sufficient
security against abuse of my server, I will leave it to that.
TCP and therefore SMTP is a bidirectional protocol (SYN-ACK and such).
If you really estimate an attacker between you and the remote end, you
will need *verified*
Hi,
sorry, I know this is not directly related to postfix but I know that
there are several very experienced people reading this list. My question
is how you (the people that use and administer mailservers) handle the
localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
The local-part of a mailbox
localpart case sensivity according to rfc5321:
The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive.
You are misunderstanding. Relaying MTAs MUST treat the local-part as
case sensitive. IOW, until the message is received at the destination,
case must be preserved. However, the RFC
Thanks to anybody for sharing your opinions and thoughts. I decided that
the default rate limit functions will operate completely
case-insensitive, because this seems to be what people (including me)
expect. As most people also seem to have expected that behaviour in the
past, I think this is one
Hi,
And these are the logfile lines for our sending of the non-delivery
notice we sent. One item in these log lines I do not understand at all
is relay=server50.appriver.com
http://server50.appriver.com[204.232.236.138]:25. I do not
understand where were that information is sourced. It looks
Is postscreen able to identify email as spam to prevent bouncing it?
Is there a way to alter my postfix configuration to prevent bouncing it?
This is not a matter of 'spam detection'. You have to verify for valid
(means existing) recipients *before* you accept mail.
Look for
Is postscreen able to identify email as spam to prevent bouncing it?
Is there a way to alter my postfix configuration to prevent bouncing it?
This is not a matter of 'spam detection'. You have to verify for valid
(means existing) recipients *before* you accept mail.
Look for
Am 22.02.2013 17:06, schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 08:48:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
We are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
host[1-4].example.com
As I did
Dear list,
we are trying to establish enforced TLS with a partner that hosts about
2000 recipient domains. All of these point to the same four MX records:
host[1-4].example.com
As I did not want to specify all of these domains in our tls_policy
file, I wanted to ask if there is any option
- To inspect mail for badness (there is a better solution in Postfix
than hold+cron)
Would it be possible to explain, what you mean by a better solution?
My problem is, that since a while we receive mails containing 0-day
malware which is not recognised by any of our AV scanners
Using third party tool/script is strictly prohibited ..That is the
reason i dont use postfwd .
So, what about postfix itself? Did you really analyze every line of the
source code?
It would be greate if you could help me to customize
smtpd-policy-template for me
The policy delegation
I'm not sure, if sending an e-mail about a full mailqueue-condition is
the best way to go ;-)
depends
if you have no bulk-mail on your server it will tak enot too long
to find a good value to adjust the 50 and as example if i have
500 queued messages i like to look if there is soemthing
Hey guys,
if [ `$mailq_count` -gt 50 ]; then echo Mail count on Server is
`$mailq_count`|/usr/sbin/sendmail -f r...@example.com repo...@example.com ; fi
I'm not sure, if sending an e-mail about a full mailqueue-condition is
the best way to go ;-)
cheers, Jan
.
For rate limit examples see postfwd's documentation at
http://postfwd.org. If you have any ruleset related questions you are
welcome to ask them on postfwd's mailinglist.
Best regards
Jan P. Kessler
questions on
postfwd's mailingslist.
Regards
Jan P. Kessler
In an attempt to work around existing infrastructure, I am trying to
restrict, by sender domain, what mail is accepted from certain IPs.
My thought at the moment is the lookup would look something like:
ip.add.re.ssdomain1.com http://domain1.com, domain2.com
http://domain2.com
And if a
Ralf Hildebrandt schrieb:
* Muhammed Sameer samix_...@yahoo.com:
Hello,
In my postfix configuration I want to apply an smtp restriction class if the
domainname of the sender and the recipient is different
for example in my main.cf i am using
You need a policy server for that
Bingo:
-o
receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
-o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
header_checks will be executed twice
ghe schrieb:
Wietse says something like Spam is war -- RFCs don't apply. OK, but
how about nmap ethics?
I've started hitting spam IPs and their nets with nmap to find out who
they are and maybe a little of what they're up to (and using the info
to decide if the net belongs in my packet
He knows! But he argues that the hostname COULD be found and the
WORDING of the message is (supposedly) incorrect.
Ok, got that. Although I think it's kind of nitpicking, a more precise
answer would be
Client host rejected: cannot verify your hostname, [87.53.72.254]
The one observation I've made is there is no way of spotting in the logs
that the mail was subjected to a whitelist. For example;
map:
example.com OK putting text here does not log it
I'm guessing I can do this
example.com WARN whitelisted
example.com OK
But is there a way to get OK to
P. Kessler
Please note:
# wants exclusive mails only ;-)
id=GROUP3; recipient==j...@doe.local; recipient_count=1; \
action=REJECT too many rcpts $$recipient_count = 1
The recipient attribute is only valid for single recipient mails at
smtpd_data_restrictions. So this rule works, but other
Noel Jones wrote:
postfix-l...@monmouth.com wrote:
The postconf(5) manage says: 'a result of OK is not allowed for
safety reasons.'
Is there a way to bypass this?
No.
Is it possible to use permit_auth_destination here?
Ignacio Garcia schrieb:
FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=2.9
The helo_name (IMPaqm2.telefonica.net) did not match the sender_domain
(terra.es) nor the mx (mx.terra.es).
CLIENT_NOT_MX/A_FROM_DOMAIN=9.1
The client_name (IMPaqm2.telefonica.net) did not match the sender_domain
(terra.es) nor the
José Luis Tallón schrieb:
What we do (without policyd-weight, however):
Redirect these problematic domains to a special restriction class (we
call it from_freemail)
Then, we match the sending server with *any* valid sending server for
that domain.
Something along the lines:
ACCESS
LuKreme schrieb:
On 22-Jun-2009, at 18:29, mouss wrote:
Is there anyway to, if not outright reject anyone whose DNS shows up as
unknown to at least tempfail them with a Ooops, your DNS is not
resolving, try back later or something?
if you insist, you could use one of
Steve schrieb:
I have to be honest, I looked at Postfwd a couple of weeks back and it
left me with a bad feeling. It was utter dependency hell to install -
It's your decision, but the only dependencies are Net::DNS and
Net::Server perl modules and perl itself, of course.
like Russian
1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
record for a given sender domain? I guess it won't as there's
reject_unknown_sender but I'd prefer to be sure.
2. Is there a maximum number of mx records that will be checked by
postfix? Are there any standards requiring or
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jan P. Kessler:
1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
record for a given sender domain?
It looks up MX records. As with many other Postfix features, there
is no access control on information that does not exist.
Noel Jones wrote
Florian Wagner schrieb:
Hi,
I'm currently playing around with client certificates in postfix.
Is there any way do do something similar to reject_sender_login_mismatch
with certificate authentication? A table to map from certificate
fingerprints to allowed addresses?
postfwd (a policy
J Sloan schrieb:
I'm going to try out hapolicy first, since it's quite a bit quicker and
cheaper to set up than full blown mysql replication.
hapolicy (http://postfwd.org/DEVEL/tools/hapolicy-0.99.1) was developed
to be small (~200 lines perl), simple and reliable. therefore it uses
only
mig schrieb:
I wrote a policy server (that do RBL checks and dynamically disable slow RBL
servers). I supposed the right place is the smptd_client_restrictions:
postfwd does asynchronous dnsbl lookups and allows to disable
non-responding lists automatically. it also has an integrated cache
Voytek Eymont schrieb:
ahem, what else might be worthwile to put into mime header check ?
single rule mime header check seems lonely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
Roland Plüss schrieb:
It's just that you said they monitor the number of dns queries. Now by
bypassing a query for the DNS I can put it locally on my machine so no
queries for the DNS goes out to the net. Whatever I removed the line
from /etc/hosts for testing but it still doesn't seem to work.
Roland Plüss schrieb:
I'll try mapping zen.spamhaus.org to 127.0.0.2 in my /etc/hosts. This
should not require a DNS lookup and hopefully it works then. Let's see
You must not do this if you want to use zen.spamhaus.org. Please follow
the given advices and read something about how dnsbls
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
Is there any good reason why smtpd_tls_received_header does not include
the ccert_fingerprint when available?
Perhaps it is because software does not grow on trees and
actually needs to be created first?
Hey - no offense, we're in the same business! This
Muhammed Sameer schrieb:
Salaam,
Hello everyone, Can I write a postfix check myself?
Actually, I want postfix to check for the quota and status of the user in a
database, and if the user is overquota or if the status of the user is
suspended, I want postfix to accordingly bounce the
Dear postfix developers,
would it be possible/valuable to enhance xforward by additional
attributes reflecting the tls parameters of the upstream smtp session?
Background is the current development of a content/proxyfilter.
Cheers, Jan
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 06:50:13PM +0100, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
would it be possible/valuable to enhance xforward by additional
attributes reflecting the tls parameters of the upstream smtp session?
Background is the current development of a content/proxyfilter
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
The topmost header by your-MTA is trustworthy, as are any headers
above it.
That makes sense, of course.
Is there any good reason why smtpd_tls_received_header does not include
the ccert_fingerprint when available?
mouss schrieb:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
...
How can i solve this problem at all?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
Tom Diehl schrieb:
Hi,
I have a machine running postfix-2.3.2 that processes mail for about
100 virtual
domains. One of my customers wants to try using one of those anti-spam
services
that filters mail before it gets to our box. The problem is that I
know spammy
will ignore the MX and try to
Jan P. Kessler schrieb:
Tom Diehl schrieb:
Hi,
I have a machine running postfix-2.3.2 that processes mail for about
100 virtual
domains. One of my customers wants to try using one of those
anti-spam services
that filters mail before it gets to our box. The problem is that I
know spammy
Tony Yarusso schrieb:
We're having no end of trouble setting up a new server here, so I'm
hoping someone can explain what's going on. Basically, we have a new
server that of course will generate messages from cron jobs, PHP
mailers, and that sort of thing, and we want them to be able to make
Is there any reason why the transport_table wants
domain nexthop
while sender_dependent_relayhost_maps wants
@domain nexthop
regards, Jan
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Yes, the lookup key in transport was historically domain only, and also
supports parent-domain lookups via .parent, while the address mapping
tables just support [EMAIL PROTECTED], @domain. So as not to confuse bare
users (for domains in $mydestination) with bare
What about simply using uuencode?
( echo Text ; uuencode origname.gz attname.gz ) \
| mailx -s subject -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 02:25:58PM +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
What about simply using uuencode?
( echo Text ; uuencode origname.gz attname.gz ) \
| mailx -s subject -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uuencode is obsolete. MIME has been around
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
