On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 03:09:40PM +0200, Joachim Lindenberg wrote:
> I don´t get why defining a different transport per domain should be
> easier than defining a tls policy per domain, and my configuration is
> mostly automated anyway.
Not *per-domain*, per TLS security level. All domains that
-us...@postfix.org <> Im Auftrag von Viktor Dukhovni
Gesendet: Friday, 27 May 2022 15:13
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: transport map with TLS policies?
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 09:21:23AM +0200, Joachim Lindenberg wrote:
> I added a transport map (or “route” as mailcow-dockeri
Dear Joachim,
"Joachim Lindenberg" writes:
> Couldn´t run the python script due to postfix in docker, but can run
> postfix-finger domain - but this tells me what I already knew and
> wrote in my first mail. The certificate is not trusted and thus verify
> as default does not work, and it
Viktor Dukhovni writes:
> (... thanks ...)
> Yes. But in your case (with an overly strict default policy, requiring
> may exceptions) it would be more appropriate to define a dedicated
> transport for opportunistic unauthenticated TLS:
>
> # Or "dane" instead of "may" if you have a working
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 09:21:23AM +0200, Joachim Lindenberg wrote:
> I added a transport map (or “route” as mailcow-dockerized calls it)
> that points to the alive MX
What was the exact form of the transport entry? Presumably, something
like:
example.com smtp:[mx1.example.com]
at all.
Does it?
Best Regards, Joachim
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org <> Im Auftrag von Byung-Hee HWANG
Gesendet: Friday, 27 May 2022 14:11
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: AW: transport map with TLS policies?
Hellow Joachim,
"Joachim
Hellow Joachim,
"Joachim Lindenberg" writes:
> Hello Byung-Hee,
> I do have all of the following in my TLS policy:
> domainmay
> mx.domain may
> [mx.domain]:25may
> and it doesn´t work for me.
Well you could check that your server is 'good' or 'not
HWANG
Gesendet: Friday, 27 May 2022 11:01
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: transport map with TLS policies?
Hellow Joachim,
"Joachim Lindenberg" writes:
> I wanted to send a mail to a domain yesterday, that was using dead MX
> records and one the one MX that was
Hellow Joachim,
"Joachim Lindenberg" writes:
> I wanted to send a mail to a domain yesterday, that was using dead MX records
> and one
> the one MX that was alive, was presenting an untrusted certificate (my server
> uses verify
> by default). I added a transport m
I wanted to send a mail to a domain yesterday, that was using dead MX records
and one the one MX that was alive, was presenting an untrusted certificate (my
server uses verify by default). I added a transport map (or “route” as
mailcow-dockerized calls it) that points to the alive MX plus a TLS
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:18:56PM +0300, basini...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Viktor.
>
> So to add this "custom smtp transport" do I need to add a section in
> main.cf just like "smtp unix", but with a custom "service type" column
> and the additional option `-o smtp_host_lookup=native`?
On 20.05.21 21:18, basini...@gmail.com wrote:
So to add this "custom smtp transport" do I need to add a section in
main.cf just like "smtp unix", but with a custom "service type" column and
the additional option `-o smtp_host_lookup=native`?
you can as well put IP address into the brackets.
Thanks Viktor.
So to add this "custom smtp transport" do I need to add a section in main.cf
just like "smtp unix", but with a custom "service type" column and the
additional option `-o smtp_host_lookup=native`?
On 20.05.2021 21:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:52:38PM
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:52:38PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> As the docs say, the brackets disable MX lookups, not DNS lookups.
>
> Sounds like you should read
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_host_lookup
> and probably use "dns, native"
Thanks Noel, that's the right answer. I
basini...@gmail.com:
> `/etc/postfix/transport`
> .lan smtp:[somehost]
This disables MX lookups before A lookups. This DOES NOT disable
DNS lookups.
> May 20 20:27:25 dexp.lan postfix/smtp[226399]: 4E537CEFD1:
> to=, relay=none, delay=0.4, delays=0.14/0.02/0.23/0,
> dsn=5.4.4,
On 5/20/2021 12:38 PM, basini...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi List!
I want to use native SMTP host lookup instead of DNS, but only for *some*
domains.
From `man 5 transport`:
and disable MX (mail ex‐changer) DNS lookups with [host] or [host]:port.
I tried it, but according to postfix logs, it's
Hi List!
I want to use native SMTP host lookup instead of DNS, but only for *some*
domains.
>From `man 5 transport`:
> and disable MX (mail ex‐changer) DNS lookups with [host] or [host]:port.
I tried it, but according to postfix logs, it's still resolving it using DNS.
If I replace the name
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
>> server_host = ldap://zimbraldap:389
>> server_port = 389
>> search_base =
>> query_filter =
>> (&(|(zimbraMailDeliveryAddress=%s)(zimbraMailAlias=%s))(zimbraMailStatus=enabled))
>> result_attribute = mail,zimbraMailAlias
>
> See the
On 19 Sep 2019, at 11:54, Adam Barnett wrote:
When i changed the LDAP response to
server_host = ldap://zimbraldap:389
server_port = 389
search_base =
query_filter =
(&(|(zimbraMailDeliveryAddress=%s)(zimbraMailAlias=%s))(zimbraMailStatus=enabled))
result_attribute = mail,zimbraMailAlias
e -
| From: "Wietse Venema"
| To: "Postfix users"
| Sent: Thursday, 19 September, 2019 16:32:48
| Subject: Re: transport map from ldap
| Adam Barnett:
|> There was this error as well
|>
|> Sep 19 14:59:47 foo postfix/qmgr[103420]: warning: connect to transport
|&g
Adam Barnett:
> There was this error as well
>
> Sep 19 14:59:47 foo postfix/qmgr[103420]: warning: connect to transport
> private/f...@bar.comrelay: No such file or directory
>
Right. That was for the malformed transport result with an email
address at the beginning.
What about the
[ http://www.dneg.com/ | www.dneg.com ]
__
- Original Message -
| From: "Wietse Venema"
| To: "Postfix users"
| Sent: Thursday, 19 September, 2019 16:19:41
| Subject: Re: transport map from ldap
| Adam Barnett:
|> Hi,
|>
|> That is the only
Adam Barnett:
> Hi,
>
> That is the only error
>
> Sep 19 14:59:54 foo postfix/error[103706]: 3C10828C082: to=,
> relay=none, delay=0.01, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (mail
> transport unavailable)
>
There is more than this.
Wietse
Negative
160 Great Portland Street,W1W 5QA
T: 020-7268-5000
[ http://www.dneg.com/ | www.dneg.com ]
__
- Original Message -
| From: "Matus UHLAR - fantomas"
| To: "Postfix users"
| Sent: Thursday, 19 September, 2019 16:00:03
| Subject: Re: transpor
I have tried both
adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
and
relay:[smtp.foo.com]
as the the output of the ldap lookup and i just get
status=deferred (mail transport unavailable) error
any other error in logs? IS the smtp.foo.com reachable?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;
Great Portland Street,W1W 5QA
T: 020-7268-5000
[ http://www.dneg.com/ | www.dneg.com ]
__
- Original Message -
| From: "Wietse Venema"
| To: "Postfix users"
| Sent: Thursday, 19 September, 2019 14:51:52
| Subject: Re: transport map from ldap
| ab:
|
ab:
>
> Wow lots of my post got cut off, this is what i wrote.
>
> As you can see i am returning adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
> But the mail log is saying transport map error
>
>
>
> Hi All.
>
> I would like the transport_maps to be driven from a
Wow lots of my post got cut off, this is what i wrote.
As you can see i am returning adamt...@foo.com relay:[smtp.foo.com]
But the mail log is saying transport map error
Hi All.
I would like the transport_maps to be driven from an ldap lookuop
but i am unsure of the format it should
ab:
> Hi All.
>
> I would like the transport_maps to be driven from an ldap lookuop
> but i am unsure of the format it should be returning
>
> I have the following config
>
>
> and my /etc/postfix/ldap-transport.cf looks like this
>
> This returns the output when doing a postmap vq
>
>
Hi All.
I would like the transport_maps to be driven from an ldap lookuop
but i am unsure of the format it should be returning
I have the following config
and my /etc/postfix/ldap-transport.cf looks like this
This returns the output when doing a postmap vq
but is that correct for a
The text under "TABLE SEARCH ORDER" describes that the search order
is first user+extension@domain, second user@domain, third domain, etc.
The text "Tables will be searched in the specified order until a
match is found" means that it first searches all tables for
user+extension@domain, second
Hello,
I'm trying to select a transport to use based on the recipient domain
in a transport_map hash file, but a lower priority regexp that matches
the full recipient address is overriding the higher priority
domain-level match. Based on the postconf transport_maps
documentation, "Tables will be
Following a recipe for selective transports on this list I have added a
transport map to a server with IPv4 *and* IPv6 interfaces.
# postconf mail_version
mail_version = 2.11.3
# postconf -n | grep inet
inet_interfaces = 188.138.4.217, 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:53:42 +0100
Thomas Leuxner t...@leuxner.net wrote:
# postconf -n | grep inet
inet_interfaces = 188.138.4.217, 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
set above to = all (default), and try to set:
smtp_bind_address = 188.138.4.217
smtp_bind_address6 =
* Koko Wijatmoko k...@wijatmoko.name 2015.01.06 11:22:
set above to = all (default), and try to set:
smtp_bind_address = 188.138.4.217
smtp_bind_address6 = 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
test it by sending to gmail again.
Unfortunately this yields the same problem.
signature.asc
Description:
Thomas Leuxner:
# postconf -n | grep inet
inet_interfaces = 188.138.4.217, 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
...
Unlike the original recipe
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/smtp-IPv4-IPv6-map-td61342.html, the
transport fails with _only_ 'inet_protocols=ipv6' (or ipv4 for
Thomas Leuxner:
Why are you surprised? You disable a IPv6 in inet_protocols,
but you require IPv6 in inet_interfaces.
Hi Wietse,
because the option was not part of the original stanza which I
deemed comprehensive. Maybe my impression was postfix internally
knows which format is IPv4
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 12:36:
Why are you surprised? You disable a IPv6 in inet_protocols,
but you require IPv6 in inet_interfaces.
Hi Wietse,
because the option was not part of the original stanza which I deemed
comprehensive. Maybe my impression was postfix
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 12:52:
Postfix supports the protocol addresses that you specify
with inet_protocols.
Agree. But unless I give it the address to use, in addition to
-o inet_protocols=ipv6
...it does not use the IPv6 addr. I have to add it as -o
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 14:35:
IF you want to use IPv6 address syntax in inet_interfaces or elsewhere,
THEN you must enable IPv6 protocol support in main.cf or master.cf
with inet_protocols=all, inet_protocols=ipv4,ipv6, or inet_protocols=ipv6.
I hope this
Thomas Leuxner:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 12:52:
Postfix supports the protocol addresses that you specify
with inet_protocols.
Agree. But unless I give it the address to use, in addition to
-o inet_protocols=ipv6
...it does not use the IPv6 addr. I have to
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:59:44PM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
-o smtp_header_checks=pcre:$config_directory/header_checks_smtp_out
-o inet_protocols=ipv6
-o inet_interfaces=2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
If I omit the last line, it fails...
try again without chroot
Let's avoid random
On 6. jan. 2015 15.08.00 Thomas Leuxner t...@leuxner.net wrote:
# postconf -Mf smtp-ipv6
smtp-ipv6 unix - - - - - smtp
chroot
-o smtp_header_checks=pcre:$config_directory/header_checks_smtp_out
-o inet_protocols=ipv6
-o
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 17:16:
# postconf -Mf smtp-ipv6
smtp-ipv6 unix - - - - - smtp
-o smtp_header_checks=pcre:$config_directory/header_checks_smtp_out
-o inet_protocols=ipv6
-o inet_interfaces=2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
* Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org 2015.01.06 17:25:
Do this instead:
main.cf:
ipv4_interfaces = 188.138.4.217
ipv6_interfaces = 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
inet_interfaces = $ipv4_interfaces, $ipv6_interfaces
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
master.cf:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:53:42AM +0100, Thomas Leuxner wrote:
# postconf -n | grep inet
inet_interfaces = 188.138.4.217, 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
Do this instead:
main.cf:
ipv4_interfaces = 188.138.4.217
ipv6_interfaces = 2001:470:1f0b:bd0::3
Thomas Leuxner:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org 2015.01.06 14:35:
IF you want to use IPv6 address syntax in inet_interfaces or elsewhere,
THEN you must enable IPv6 protocol support in main.cf or master.cf
On 06/17/2014 11:58 PM, Jose Borges Ferreira wrote:
If you wanto to deliver do 1.2.3.4 and , if fails, then try 8.9.10.11
then you can create a dns entry with those IP an MX
ex:
some_entry.local IN MX 10 1.2.3.4
some_entry.local IN MX 20 8.9.10.11
then setup transport_maps to:
On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:45, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
Nitpick: the .local TLD is reserved by RFC 6762, .invalid may be a
better long-term choice.
I'll raise you another nitpick. .invalid is reserved by RFC6761 and in the IANA
registry of Special-Use Domain Names, just like
On 06/18/2014 11:07 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:45, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
wrote:
Nitpick: the .local TLD is reserved by RFC 6762, .invalid may
be a better long-term choice.
I'll raise you another nitpick. .invalid is reserved by RFC6761 and
in the IANA
We have 2 gateway servers in multiple locations so that we have redundancy
and of course corresponding mx records pointing to both.
This handles if GW1 fails, go to GW2
Now once at a GW the transport map handles the routing of the messages for
domain.com as shown:
domain.com
On 6/17/2014 8:30 PM, Joey J wrote:
We have 2 gateway servers in multiple locations so that we have
redundancy and of course corresponding mx records pointing to both.
This handles if GW1 fails, go to GW2
Now once at a GW the transport map handles the routing of the
messages for domain.com
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Joey J jacklistm...@gmail.com wrote:
We have 2 gateway servers in multiple locations so that we have redundancy
and of course corresponding mx records pointing to both.
This handles if GW1 fails, go to GW2
Now once at a GW the transport map handles the routing
Hi there,
how can I chenge transport maps dynamically based on some rules via
script (like PHP)
Thank you
Alberto Mariani
Ad Glamor s.r.l.
Alberto Mariani -Ad Glamor:
Hi there,
how can I chenge transport maps dynamically based on some rules via
script (like PHP)
1) Use a MySQL or SQLite database.
http://www.postfix.org/mysql_table.5.html
http://www.postfix.org/sqlite_table.5.html
2) Update a textfile, then update the
Hi,
Ive a postfix server which is used to relay emails to an external smtp
server, this was done to prevent the receiving smtp server from being
flooeded by to many messages per hour which i did by using the debug command
and a sleep 6, in addition to this i added a transport map to slow down
, in addition to this i added a transport
map to slow down delivery even more for certain hosts/recipient domains:
[MAIN.CF FILE]
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
smtpslow_destination_rate_delay = 310s
smtpslow_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
Matt - Opem Solutions:
[MASTER.CF FILE]
smtpslow unix - - n - 1 smtp -D
-o syslog_name=postfix-smtp-slow
-o max_use=1
The -D (debug) is a bit of a dirty hack as it basically calls a sleep for 6
seconds between messages to ensure it
.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Noel Jones
Sent: 23 September 2013 2:26 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Problem with slow transport map
On 9/23/2013 7:17 AM, Matt - Opem Solutions wrote:
Hi,
Ive
Matt - Opem Solutions:
As per Wietse
smtp_destination_rate_delay = 6 as an alternative to using the debug
command.
Use smtpslow_destination_rate_delay = 6, and get rid of the
debugger hack.
Wietse
smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
smtp_destination_recipient_limit = 1
which is for the standard (non slow delivery) and spooled in two messages
(that are not in the smtpslow transport map) and both got delivered
instantly.
Regards
Matt.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us
Matt - Opem Solutions:
The problem is i need to 6 second slow down for both smtp and smtpslow,
whilst smtpslow would slow down using this it wouldn't slow down smtp as
well.
Then, use both, and set each delay to an appropriate value.
Note that setting _rate_delay on one transport WILL NOT
/k12_tm_imap2
postfix reload
sent email to user1 , the message re-wrote the header as being local, as if I
had an incorrect entry. I double checked my transport map and it all points to
us...@sub1.mydomain.com
sample
Aug 20 10:36:41 imap2 postfix/pipe[3641]: 536D3DC23DA:
to=us...@imap2.mydomain.com
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:45:44AM -0400, jeffrey j donovan wrote:
Aug 20 10:36:41 imap2 postfix/pipe[3641]: 536D3DC23DA:
to=us...@imap2.mydomain.com, orig_to=user1@mydomain, relay=dovecot,
delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0/0/0.01, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered via
dovecot service)
As
jeffrey j donovan:
Aug 20 10:36:41 imap2 postfix/pipe[3641]: 536D3DC23DA:
to=us...@imap2.mydomain.com,
That is us...@imap2.mydomain.com.
us...@mydomain.com smtp:sub1.mydomain.com:25
That is not us...@imap2.mydomain.com
You need to update your virtual aliases or your transport map
.mydomain.com
You need to update your virtual aliases or your transport map.
Wietse
thanks for the reply,
I do have a virtual alias map that i am using for some redirected mail list. is
it because i have no user entry that it delivers locally ? i thought that it
would step down
...@news.mydomain.com
If you rewrite an envelope recipient address X with virtual_alias_maps
(or otherwise) into envelope recipient address Y, then Postfix will
use envelope recipient address Y for transport map lookups.
Therefore you will use envelope recipient address Y on the transport
map left-hand side, not X
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:39 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
If you rewrite an envelope recipient address X with virtual_alias_maps
(or otherwise) into envelope recipient address Y, then Postfix will
use envelope recipient address Y for transport map lookups.
Therefore you
jeffrey j donovan:
If I do not use a virtual alias map, is a transport map sufficient
by itself or should I always use the two together ? I only ask
this because this was working before I added the alias map. I just
want to be clear that these two work together.
That depends.
First, Postfix
mapping to avoid
overwhelming you with detail).
Wietse
much thanks for the clarification. Where does the transport map fit in ?
I think you mentioned it before use envelope recipient address Y on the
transport
map left-hand side. Ill assume that if i specify a virtual user that i also
need
, mail for $mydestination is given to $local_transport,
mail for $relay_domains is given to $relay_transport, and mail for
$virtual_mailbox_domains is given to $virtual_transport. Other
mail is given to $default_transport, or returned as undeliverable.
The transport map is needed ONLY when Postfix
On 12/23/2012 11:49 AM, Joey J wrote:
What you are saying is correct 100%, the transport map handles it. MY
server is set in DNS as the MX record so it delivers to
myrelayservice.com http://myrelayservice.com and then holds it, but
what I want is to BCC any messages that come in when
Le 23/12/2012 05:21, Joey J a écrit :
Hello All,
I have done this previously, but can't find any of my own documentation
that I make.
I want to configure a transport map, that delivers mail to my server (
postfix acting as a gateway ) but also deliver every message to a mailbox
:
@abc.com abc-bac...@hotmail.com
Thanks!
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 4:44 AM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Le 23/12/2012 05:21, Joey J a écrit :
Hello All,
I have done this previously, but can't find any of my own documentation
that I make.
I want to configure a transport map
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Joey J wrote:
I currently have a transport_map that takes mail for abc.com and send it to
their server mail.abc.com, so I am acting as the gateway for the domain.
My trasport config looks like:
abc.comsmtp:[mail.abc.com]
Now lets say their server is down so we decide
Hello All,
I have done this previously, but can't find any of my own documentation
that I make.
I want to configure a transport map, that delivers mail to my server (
postfix acting as a gateway ) but also deliver every message to a mailbox.
this is how we get mail if the server crashes
that a relays_domain map that
contains example.com is redundant in this situation but, given my
inexperience with Postfix, I would like to have this inference
confirmed or denied by someone who knows for sure.
Given the requirement for the transport map on the MX hosts does the
relay_domains value need to be set
James B. Byrne:
Given the requirement for the transport map on the MX hosts does the
relay_domains value need to be set at all?
If the destination is not on the machine itself, the destination
should be listed in relay_domains.
transport_maps is not a substitute for relay_domains (think
On Wed, June 13, 2012 12:23, Wietse Venema wrote:
James B. Byrne:
Given the requirement for the transport map on the MX hosts does the
relay_domains value need to be set at all?
If the destination is not on the machine itself, the destination
should be listed in relay_domains.
Thank you
James B. Byrne:
On Wed, June 13, 2012 12:23, Wietse Venema wrote:
James B. Byrne:
Given the requirement for the transport map on the MX hosts does the
relay_domains value need to be set at all?
If the destination is not on the machine itself, the destination
should be listed
On Wed, June 13, 2012 13:40, Wietse Venema wrote:
Please do not confuse RECEIVE controls with DELIVERY controls.
transport_maps determines how to DELIVER a domain.
relay_domains determines what domains to RECEIVE for forwarding,
Thank you. I now understand why my test passed when it
Hi
I posted this message on Baruwa and Postfix mailing list since I don't
know where the problem is
Postfix is set to use a relayhost and a mysql based transport map for
some domain that are not hosted on the same server
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql
Hi
I posted this message on Baruwa and Postfix mailing list since I don't
know where the problem is
Postfix is set to use a relayhost and a mysql based transport map for
some domain that are not hosted on the same server
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
transport_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql
Maxime Gaudreault:
I tried to set a text transport map and postmap'd it instead of mysql
and I get the same issue.
Please show postconf -n output with the text transport maop, and
logging for a good delivery and for a bad delivery. Please
indicate which delivery is good and which is bad
ignoring transport map
Maxime Gaudreault:
I tried to set a text transport map and postmap'd it instead of mysql
and I get the same issue.
Please show postconf -n output with the text transport maop, and
logging for a good delivery and for a bad delivery. Please indicate
which delivery is good
Maxime Gaudreault:
Jun 11 17:07:00 mx01 postfix/smtp[2003]: 61C50561039: to=
recipi...@domain.ca, relay=192.168.100.9[192.168.100.9]:25, delay=3.4,
delays=3.4/0/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 4fd65e47-000321f5
Message accepted for delivery)
This appears to be a real email message.
] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: June-12-12 11:43 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Postfix sometime ignoring transport map
Maxime Gaudreault:
Jun 11 17:07:00 mx01 postfix/smtp[2003]: 61C50561039: to=
recipi...@domain.ca, relay=192.168.100.9[192.168.100.9]:25,
delay=3.4, delays=3.4/0/0/0, dsn=2.0.0
Maxime Gaudreault:
Jun 11 17:07:00 mx01 postfix/smtp[2003]: 61C50561039: to=
recipi...@domain.ca, relay=192.168.100.9[192.168.100.9]:25,
delay=3.4, delays=3.4/0/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0
4fd65e47-000321f5 Message accepted for delivery)
Wietse:
This appears to be a real email
]: B5281560068: removed
And it's not all emails that goes through the wrong server..
-Original Message-
From: wie...@porcupine.org [mailto:wie...@porcupine.org]
Sent: June-12-12 2:34 PM
To: Maxime Gaudreault
Cc: wie...@porcupine.org
Subject: Re: Postfix sometime ignoring transport map
Maxime
-
From: wie...@porcupine.org [mailto:wie...@porcupine.org]
Sent: June-12-12 2:34 PM
To: Maxime Gaudreault
Cc: wie...@porcupine.org
Subject: Re: Postfix sometime ignoring transport map
Maxime Gaudreault:
How do you know it came from the cache ?
because I wrote the code that produced
Message-
From: wie...@porcupine.org [mailto:wie...@porcupine.org]
Sent: June-12-12 2:34 PM
To: Maxime Gaudreault
Cc: wie...@porcupine.org
Subject: Re: Postfix sometime ignoring transport map
Maxime Gaudreault:
How do you know it came from the cache ?
because I wrote the code
, Joe Wong wrote:
I found that if the mail relay defined in sender dependent transport map
is temporary unreachable during first mail delivery attempt, the 2nd mail
delivery is using relayhost setting defined in main.cf. Is this expected?
Sorry, this is incorrect. Postfix will use the indicated
Hello,
I found that if the mail relay defined in sender dependent transport map
is temporary unreachable during first mail delivery attempt, the 2nd mail
delivery is using relayhost setting defined in main.cf. Is this expected?
- Joe
On 05/28/2011 11:45 AM, Joe Wong wrote:
Hello,
I found that if the mail relay defined in sender dependent transport map
That doesn't exist; do you mean sender_dependent_default_transport_maps,
or sender_dependent_relayhost_maps ?
They behave differently.
is temporary unreachable during
/2011 11:45 AM, Joe Wong wrote:
Hello,
I found that if the mail relay defined in sender dependent transport map
That doesn't exist; do you mean sender_dependent_default_transport_maps, or
sender_dependent_relayhost_maps ?
They behave differently.
is temporary unreachable during first
Wietse and Victor,
I just wanted to follow up and say thank you to both of you for your
gentle corrections of my misconceptions, as well as all the work you've
done on Postfix itself.
The ease with which I was able to convert my production systems to a
multiple-instance setup was, frankly,
Hey, all,
I manage a high-volume mail installation, using an after-queue content
filter for spam filtering.
We use an ldap transport map (actually a couple of them) to direct each
recipient's email to it's appropriate final destination.
I recently got some errors about timeouts in the transport
Michael Alan Dorman:
Hey, all,
I manage a high-volume mail installation, using an after-queue content
filter for spam filtering.
We use an ldap transport map (actually a couple of them) to direct each
recipient's email to it's appropriate final destination.
I recently got some errors
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:50:49PM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
I manage a high-volume mail installation, using an after-queue content
filter for spam filtering.
We use an ldap transport map (actually a couple of them) to direct each
recipient's email to it's appropriate final
The transport map can reject a recipient at SMTP RCPT TO time,
by resolving the recipient to the error(8) or retry(8) transport.
The transport map must therefore be searched BEFORE the filter.
I had not considered that. Ah, well, with 2.6, multi-instance isn't
such a huge burden.
Mike.
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
