Hi Eric,
I must be missing something here. I decided to give postfix and
followed your quickie howto, but I cannot send email out. First this is
what I have done.
Stopped qmail-smtpd and qmail-send using svc -d service name and adding
the "down" files to the proper directories.
I used yum on
Eric and list,
I am sending emails now. I changed the line echo "mail.domain.com:587 postmas...@domain.com:password"
sasl_passwd
and used echo "192.168.5.2:587 " sasl_passwd
ran postmap sasl_passwd
restarted postfix and emails started coming through.
I still get some certificate
W dniu 13.11.2009 20:15, d...@acbsco.com pisze:
Eric and list,
I am sending emails now. I changed the line echo mail.domain.com:587
postmas...@domain.com:password
mailto:postmas...@domain.com:password sasl_passwd
and used echo 192.168.5.2:587 sasl_passwd
ran postmap sasl_passwd
Aleksander,
yeah kinda weird posting questions on qmail-toaster page regarding
postfix. However, if you read the entire post, I was following a
previous post by Eric Shubert on Oct. 29th about using postfix to
securely relay mail to a qmailtoaster server.
Eric, did you mention you this would
: Re: [qmailtoaster] Re: eMPF requires authentication to work?
Thanks guys for all the input. I should be more descriptive with my
issue. First, my users do not connect to any email accounts on my
internal servers. I have different applications running on my internal
servers that need to send
Thanks Eric,
the internal servers are running netqmail-1.06. So what you are saying
is to make sure the qmail daemons are not running by stopping them and
moving the run scripts out of /service directory. Then install postfix
via yum and configure it per your instructions in the quickie guide
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:46 PM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re: eMPF requires authentication to work?
That's a valid way of doing things, but it presents
Eric Shubert wrote:
Good question. I don't know the answer to that off hand.
Michael Colvin wrote:
Oh, I totally agree, Eric. I guess my point was trying to find out
if there
was any reason they needed to do it that way... Really, the eMPF
functionality should be on his internal server, not
