Hi sir,
Please delete this thread from the archive of the gmane.org or atleast hide the
ipaddress and email address from the logs from the below archive.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/227441
Regards,
Kshitij Mali
Hello sir ,
Please delete the thread or atleast hide the ipadress and email address in the
content on the below archived post:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/227441
Regards,
Kshitij
>> * mail for example.com arrives at the relay because
>> it is the highest priority MX record for example.com
>
> Yes, but don't use the word "relay" here, it is too easily
> confused
> with the transport name, calle it the border MTA or the SMTP gateway,
OK thanks for the language tips
>>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:30:02PM -0700, email builder wrote:
> example.com relay:internal.smtp.example.com
>
> * mail for example.com arrives at the relay because
> it is the highest priority MX record for example.com
Yes, but don't use the word "relay" here, it is too easily confused
with the
Ansgar, thank you for your patience:
Well, it looks like I could do
relay_domains = example.com
transport table: example.com relay:other.com
I have to use "other.com" in the transport because I need
to use
DNS-based "load balancing" of mult
On 2012-06-28 email builder wrote:
>>> Well, it looks like I could do
>>>
>>> relay_domains = example.com
>>>
>>> transport table: example.com relay:other.com
>>>
>>> I have to use "other.com" in the transport because I need to use
>>> DNS-based "load balancing" of multiple SMTP servers on the
On 6/28/2012 10:54 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Given that on the final delivery host we treat ALL of our domains,
> real and virtual, as virtual for the purposes of email;
>
> And the final delivery host is NOT listed as MX for any domain;
>
> And we are using cyrus-imap;
>
> And we take the vi
On Thu, June 28, 2012 14:48, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> One example configuration does not exclude other possible
> configurations.
>
The difficulty I face is excluding those which either do not work or
are not particularly robust. I am not conversant with the inner
working of either Postfix or Cyrus
On 6/28/2012 10:18 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, June 28, 2012 13:41, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> cyrus_destination_recipient_limit=1 means deliver a maximum of one
>> recipient to each "cyrus" transport defined in master.cf, which
>> pipes to the cyrus "deliver" program; there may be multiple
On Thu, June 28, 2012 13:11, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> virtual_mailbox_domains / virtual_mailbox_maps is for the typical
> "hosted" domain with recipients that may or may not be actual unix
> users and the possibility of many separate domains coexisting on the
> same server. Delivery to the mailstor
On Thu, June 28, 2012 13:41, Noel Jones wrote:
> cyrus_destination_recipient_limit=1 means deliver a maximum of one
> recipient to each "cyrus" transport defined in master.cf, which
> pipes to the cyrus "deliver" program; there may be multiple
> processes running in parallel.
>
> Apparently some
On 6/28/2012 9:14 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, June 28, 2012 11:05, k...@rice.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> One item to keep in mind is that if you use the local(8) for mailbox
>> delivery, you cannot use the Cyrus single-instance store functionality
>> where a message sent to multiple recipients i
On 6/28/2012 5:36 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Thank you for your assistance. I am not concerned that the advice I
> receive is wrong. My limited experience with Postfix simply makes it
> difficult for me to grasp the entire meaning and implications of what
> I am told.
>
> Perhaps this would be
On Thu, June 28, 2012 11:05, k...@rice.edu wrote:
>
> One item to keep in mind is that if you use the local(8) for mailbox
> delivery, you cannot use the Cyrus single-instance store functionality
> where a message sent to multiple recipients is only stored once on
> the filesystem. The local agen
>>> Specific questions I had were if I can use the standard DNS "load
>>> balancing" (multiple MX records, same priority, possibly multiple
>>> IPs
>>> resolving to one A record) setup *behind* a relay server (those MTAs
>>> behind the relay only being available via the relay and never
>>>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 03:10:14PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> If anyone is able to reproduce the issue with TLSv1.2 enabled,
> please send me logging for one failed connection with "smtpd_tls_loglevel
> = 4" gathered after a "postfix stop; postfix start", so that the
> TLS session cache is in
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:04:16AM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of
> Postfix - using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the
> "security", "updates", and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS
> is broken with the known SSL versi
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 09:58:08AM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:00:18AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> > On Thu, June 28, 2012 06:36, James B. Byrne wrote:
> > > Perhaps this would be clearer to me if you would be so kind as
> > > to give me the canonical use cases for virtu
Timo Veith:
> I am searching for a similiar configuation parameter for sendmail,
> that rejects messages in the smtp dialogue if the envelope recipient
> is unknown.
>
> I've found Local_check_rcpt, check_rcpt check_compat, but these seem
> not to be enough, is that correct?
Below is the first Go
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 07:00:18AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, June 28, 2012 06:36, James B. Byrne wrote:
> > Perhaps this would be clearer to me if you would be so kind as
> > to give me the canonical use cases for virtual_aliases and for
> > virtual_domains
>
> This should read "virtu
On Thu, June 28, 2012 06:36, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Perhaps this would be clearer to me if you would be so kind as to give
> me the canonical use cases for virtual_aliases and for virtual_domains
This should read "virtual_mailbox_domains"
> insofar as Postfix considers them. Why is the latter
Dear postfix-users,
I have asked Google but haven't found something useful, yet. Maybe
someone here can tell this quickly.
I am searching for a similiar configuation parameter for sendmail,
that rejects messages in the smtp dialogue if the envelope recipient
is unknown.
I've found Local_check_rc
Wietse:
> Postfix 2.9.2 introduces support to turn off the new [TLSv1.2 and
> TLSv1.1] protocols, so that Postfix falls back to the ones that
> work.
Chris:
> Turning off the new protocols is only an interim solution?
No due date is given for global TLSv1.2 and TLSv1.1 inter-operability,
so you'l
Thank you for your assistance. I am not concerned that the advice I
receive is wrong. My limited experience with Postfix simply makes it
difficult for me to grasp the entire meaning and implications of what
I am told.
Perhaps this would be clearer to me if you would be so kind as to give
me the
2012/6/27 Wietse Venema :
> Chris:
>> 2012/6/26 Daniel L. Miller :
>> > After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix -
>> > using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates", and
>> > "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known SS
On 2012-06-28 email builder wrote:
>> Specific questions I had were if I can use the standard DNS "load
>> balancing" (multiple MX records, same priority, possibly multiple IPs
>> resolving to one A record) setup *behind* a relay server (those MTAs
>> behind the relay only being available via the r
Hi any,
I have a stupid software that sends several types of email, each with
a different subject (or body) but always with the same sender.
I would like to know if I can write sender rewriting rules like:
IF subject is ALERT replace sender with ale...@mydomain.xyz
IF subject is NEW_Fellow replace
> Specific questions I had were if I can use the standard
> DNS "load balancing" (multiple MX records, same priority,
> possibly multiple IPs resolving to one A record) setup
> *behind* a relay server (those MTAs behind the relay
> only being available via the relay and never directly).
Well, it
28 matches
Mail list logo
