On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:13:32 -0500
post...@ptld.com wrote:
> Wait, so its a fork of Postfix?
> And not the same code as what Wietse releases for the same version?
It's whatever the maintainer of that code wants, intends, etc.
Why not ask the maintainer?
--
jd
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:39:24 -0500
post...@ptld.com wrote:
> > According to http://ghettoforge.org/index.php/Postfix3 it's the
> > latest (presumably stable) release. They appear to have Postfix
> > 3.6 at this time.
>
>
> Yes, I see that. But why "Postfix3"? How is that different from
> norma
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:16:10 -0700
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Postfix was only the messenger of bad news. It does not
> > spontaneously self-destruct.
>
> I have always found Postfix to be extremely reliable and robust.
> Which was why this happening on two different systems
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 19:19:47 +0800
Frank Hwa wrote:
> for the second level domain, some are "com.au", "com.hk" (the com
> one), some are "co.uk", "co.jp" (the co one). I am not sure, isn't
> there a standard for this naming?
>
A long-standing convention to use ISO 2-letter country
codes as TLD
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 14:30:43 -0400
Thirumurugan Kalapatti wrote:
> Jul 16 12:23:30 hostM postfix/smtp[698664]: 7A2A020ECDC6:
> to=, relay=none, delay=0.05, delays=0.02/0.03/0/0,
> dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Host or domain name not found. Name
> service error for name=hostb type=A: Host not found)
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:42:44 -0400
Yuval Levy wrote:
> It is indeed a matter of interpretation, and I would like to see the
> FCC rules text. Questions:
> (1) how do they define "encrypted"?
The rules and regulations are very clear on what is permitted. They do
not need to define anything else.
On Sat, 14 May 2016 10:37:26 -0700
Noah wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am hoping to have a blacklist file that stops postfix from
> accepting email from specific IP or IP ranges.
>
[snip]
Do you want to block these because of spam or some other reason?
If for spam, then it is better to use firewall
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:25:49 -0500
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> Further, I now see clearly that dig responses I was getting from my
> MiFi connection are incomplete. No additional information with those
> problems. Just tested again, and nope, not there. Won't bother with
> that again. Migh
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:49:15 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 04:51 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The harder you try, the fewer people will read your bounce message.
>
> Honestly, I do not think it is possible for there to be fewer people
> who read bounces.
>
> Customized LOCAL bounce m
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:07:22 -0700
James Moe wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> opensuse 13.1
> postfix 2.9.6-7.4.1
>
> I recently upgraded a server from 12.3 to 13.1. Postfix worked
> correctly in v12.3.
>
> Postfix fails to start with this message:
>
> Code:
> -
10 matches
Mail list logo