Re: Caching issues when using LDAP lookups for transports

2021-02-17 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:52:07AM +0100, Ralph Seichter wrote: > In a new server setup, I use two consecutive transport lookups: > > transport_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/foo.cf ldap:/etc/postfix/bar.cf I strongly do not recommend using LDAP for per-user transport lookups. Instead: - Use

Caching issues when using LDAP lookups for transports

2021-02-17 Thread Ralph Seichter
In a new server setup, I use two consecutive transport lookups: transport_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/foo.cf ldap:/etc/postfix/bar.cf The lookup defined in foo.cf MAY return a result for a given recipient, while using bar.cf MUST return a result. This works, but with a caveat: Adding or removing

Re: no valid recipient

2021-02-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Gary Aitken: > On 2/17/21 2:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Gary Aitken: > >> < mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: DATA > >>> mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: > >> 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients > > > > That is incomplete. There is also an RCPT TO command, plus a

Re: no valid recipient

2021-02-17 Thread Bill Cole
On 17 Feb 2021, at 18:17, Gary Aitken wrote: Why is it comparing the client domain / ip and not the domain portion of the recipient address? Read the description of permit_mynetworks available via 'man 5 postconf'. The $mynetworks parameter is a set of IP addresses. I thought by saying

Re: no valid recipient

2021-02-17 Thread Gary Aitken
On 2/17/21 2:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Gary Aitken: < mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: DATA mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients That is incomplete. There is also an RCPT TO command, plus a response from Postfix that says why the

Re: SSL version question

2021-02-17 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 07:04:54PM +0100, Jeff Abrahamson wrote: > But the man page makes a good argument for setting this to medium.  > I'd originally set smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers = high, I've switched > it to medium. You can set it back to "high". Perhaps that should even be the new

Re: no valid recipient

2021-02-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Gary Aitken: > < mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: DATA > > mail-pf1-f170.google.com[209.85.210.170]: >554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients That is incomplete. There is also an RCPT TO command, plus a response from Postfix that says why the recipient is rejected. >Why doesn't

no valid recipient

2021-02-17 Thread Gary Aitken
I'm trying to allow client connections from only two places: a known ip a specific domain served at gmail And delivery only to local recipients. Relevant parts of main.cf: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 10.138.0.10/32 [:::127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 postfix-server-domain.com otherdomain.com

Re: SSL version question

2021-02-17 Thread Jeff Abrahamson
On 16/02/2021 21:34, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Dominic Raferd wrote: >> >>> In what way does that improve your security over the default, which >>> allows 1.0 and 1.1? >> As stated this is for auth clients i.e. our own people, using SMTPS or >> STARTTLS. There is no

Re: SSL version question

2021-02-17 Thread Dominic Raferd
On 17/02/2021 14:49, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2021-02-16 18:34:32 -0200, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Dominic Raferd wrote: In what way does that improve your security over the default, which allows 1.0 and 1.1? As stated this is for auth clients i.e. our own

Re: SSL version question

2021-02-17 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2021-02-16 18:34:32 -0200, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > > >> In what way does that improve your security over the default, which > >> allows 1.0 and 1.1? > > As stated this is for auth clients i.e. our own people, using SMTPS or > >