Rudy Gevaert:
> Hi,
> 
> Previously we were running postfix 2.1.5 (Debian Sarge) and now have 
> upgraded to 2.3.8 (Etch).
> 
> We have several lmtp transports in master.cf:
> 
> mail1     unix  -       -       n       -       -       lmtp
> mail2     unix  -       -       n       -       -       lmtp
> mail3     unix  -       -       n       -       -       lmtp
> 
> We used an ldap directory to route to the correct backend:
> umTransport: mail1:mail1.ugent.be
> 
> In postfix 2.1.5 the destination port of our lmtp connections was *by 
> default* 2003.

No, the built-in default LMTP TCP port was 24. However the precedence
has changed. With 2.1.5, Postfix would use lmtp_tcp_port only if
/etc/services had no entry for LMTP.

>  Because we had the following entry  in /etc/services:
> lmtp      2003/tcp
> 
> When I did the upgrade to 2.3.8 I noticed that was not the case anymore. 
>   It connected to an other port (I can't remember what anymore).

The built-in default LMTP TCP port is still 24. However the precedence
has changed. The lmtp_tcp_port parameter now overrides /etc/services.
If you want to use /etc/services, you now need to specify:

    lmtp_tcp_port = lmtp

> I tried changing lmtp_tcp_port to 2003 but that didn't help.

You mis-typed something.

I think the best way out is to drop support for lmtp_tcp_port,
for consistency with SMTP.

        Wietse

>  In the end 
> I changed the result attribute of my ldap lookup to add the port number 
> to the transport:
> result_format = %s:2003
> 
> I was wondering why this was changed, or did I miss something?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> -- 
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Rudy Gevaert          [EMAIL PROTECTED]          tel:+32 9 264 4734
> Directie ICT, afd. Infrastructuur ICT Department, Infrastructure office
> Groep Systemen                    Systems group
> Universiteit Gent                 Ghent University
> Krijgslaan 281, gebouw S9, 9000 Gent, Belgie               www.UGent.be
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> 
> 

Reply via email to