> On Jan 2, 2019, at 7:12 PM, Celejar wrote:
>
> I'm configuring Postfix to relay mail via a smarthost, and I need to
> rewrite the sender address in order for the smarthost to accept the
> mail (and not reject it as 'relaying'). I'm using generic mapping to do
> this, and it works correctly on t
Hi,
I'm configuring Postfix to relay mail via a smarthost, and I need to
rewrite the sender address in order for the smarthost to accept the
mail (and not reject it as 'relaying'). I'm using generic mapping to do
this, and it works correctly on two of my systems (Debian Sid,
running Postfix 3.3.2)
Thank you very much. That was very helpful. Especially that part where
you stated "Postfix calls these virtual domains". It is always a
problem trying to figure out another individual's meaning with the words
used. All the research I did in understanding the meaning of words like
Virtual and
On 1/2/2019 12:12 PM, Me wrote:
> If a server software can handle one domain, why can't it handle two
> or more in the same manner? Why must other domains be seen as
> somehow less in importance by labeling them "Virtual"? Regardless
> of where the server is physically located IP-wise, why not ju
If a server software can handle one domain, why can't it handle two or
more in the same manner? Why must other domains be seen as somehow less
in importance by labeling them "Virtual"? Regardless of where the
server is physically located IP-wise, why not just design the software
to do multipl
On 1/2/19 11:53 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 02.01.19 08:11, Pierre Couderc wrote:
In old days, using relayhost was a good solution for ISPs who
declared an IP as dynamic even when it is static (free.fr did that..) .
With the inconvenience of ISP smtp IPs being blacklisted because of
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 15:52, Me wrote:
> Thank you very much for that. It is an interesting possibility and deserves
> consideration...
OT: please don't top post and please don't call yourself 'Me'. Some of
the rest of us (and our Gmail systems) think we are 'me' too, so it is
confusing.
Thank you very much for that. It is an interesting possibility and
deserves consideration.
I wonder; if it was a destination thing, shouldn't the document have
used the term "destination name"? As soon as one uses the term "domain"
in the context of networking, that comes with standard termi
Am 01-Jan-19 um 17:35 schrieb Bastian Blank:
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Admin Beckspaced wrote:
If amavis-new detects some spam it will add headers like:
based on those tags I would like to send a BCC to my spam collecting
s...@address.com for further inspection and review.
Ask a
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:07:46AM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The checks are applied to *ONE LOGICAL HEADER AT A TIME*.
> So while the patterns can nest, they are matching the
> content of a *single* logical header line, not the entire
> message header.
Thanks, Viktor and Wietse.
I understan
On 02.01.19 08:11, Pierre Couderc wrote:
In old days, using relayhost was a good solution for ISPs who declared
an IP as dynamic even when it is static (free.fr did that..) .
With the inconvenience of ISP smtp IPs being blacklisted because of
spammers.
Is there a good reason today to use rel
11 matches
Mail list logo
