On Apr 30, 2012, at 18:02, Amira Othman wrote:
> I changes return path from application but it's now writing in log that mail
> from is the same mail for return path which is not correct in my case. How
> can I separate return path and mail from to be different
If the application sets both to the
Hello.
I already mentioned this topic several years ago, and
described a technique I used to compensate the problem
at this time (and it is still usable and in use today).
The problem is that on typical workstation or any other
non-mail-heavy-load machine, postfix in its default
configuration con
Am 30.04.2012 18:02, schrieb Amira Othman:
>> this has NOTHING to do with postfix-configuration the sender/envelope is
>> controlled by the application sending mail
>
> I changes return path from application but it's now writing in log that mail
> from is the same mail for return path which is n
DTNX Postmaster:
> For example, if the application uses PHP, you can force an envelope sender
> like this;
>
> sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix -t -i -r
> bounce.addr...@server.domain.tld
The envelope sender may also be specified via additional
parameters to the mail() function.
http
Michael Tokarev:
> The "trick" I use with postfix for a long time locally
> to address this issue is to mount a tmpfs on linux on
> /var/spool/postfix/run, create subdirs (pid, public,
> private) there [...]
>
> So, the question is: can postfix change the paths so
> that all these "runtime" dirs ar
Wietse Venema:
> 3) Instead of changing the file system layout, we could change
>master.cf to use "unix" instead of "fifo" endpoints for the queue
>manager and pickup services. The reason for using FIFOs is that
>Solaris 2.4 UNIX-domain sockets locked up the kernel during
>Postfix t
At the bottom of the stress readme,
http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#other
there is an allusion to what would eventually become postscreen. Might
as well update it with a sentence and a link to POSTSCREEN_README.html?
Michael Orlitzky:
> At the bottom of the stress readme,
>
> http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#other
>
> there is an allusion to what would eventually become postscreen. Might
> as well update it with a sentence and a link to POSTSCREEN_README.html?
Right. Who has time?
Wietse
On 01.05.2012 17:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Tokarev:
>> The "trick" I use with postfix for a long time locally
>> to address this issue is to mount a tmpfs on linux on
>> /var/spool/postfix/run, create subdirs (pid, public,
>> private) there [...]
>>
>> So, the question is: can postfix chan
I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
one over the other for a given application?
--Mac
- Цитат от Postfix Support Mail (postfi...@triad.ath.cx), на 01.05.2012 в
22:14 -
> I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
> about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
>
> What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages
postfi...@triad.ath.cx:
> I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
> about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
>
> What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
> one over the other for a given application?
>
> --Mac
Please
Sorry about that.
Reading the postscreen readme is what spawned the question.
## >> -Original Message-
## >> From: Noel Jones [mailto:njo...@megan.vbhcs.org]
## >> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2012 12:29
## >> To: postfix users; postfi...@triad.ath.cx
## >> Subject: Re: postgrey vs postscreen
Michael Tokarev:
[using "unix" instead of "fifo"]
> And yes, I verified the socket code (instead of pipe code) on linux
> a few days ago and it appears to work fine there too. So indeed, this
> is a very good possibility too, but it does not cover solaris well.
The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type
On 05/01/2012 03:42 PM, Postfix Support Mail wrote:
> Sorry about that.
>
> Reading the postscreen readme is what spawned the question.
>
If you enable the deep protocol tests, postscreen works pretty much like
greylisting since it will 4xx any client that passes. When they
reconnect, they skip
On May 1, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Postfix Support Mail wrote:
> I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
> about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
>
> What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
> one over the other for a gi
Am 01.05.2012 21:14, schrieb Postfix Support Mail:
> I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
> about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
>
> What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
> one over the other for a given appl
17 matches
Mail list logo
