[pfx] Re: Question on the CNAME

2023-05-03 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:02:14AM +, Ken Peng via Postfix-users wrote: > I am just not sure, for this domain SpaceMail.com, who has a CNAME to > CDN for the root domain, every query to this domain will get a CNAME. > for instance, > > $ dig spacemail.com mx +nocmd +noall +answer >

[pfx] Re: Question on the CNAME

2023-05-03 Thread Shawn Heisey via Postfix-users
On 5/3/23 19:02, Ken Peng via Postfix-users wrote: I am just not sure, for this domain SpaceMail.com, who has a CNAME to CDN for the root domain, every query to this domain will get a CNAME. for instance, $ dig spacemail.com mx +nocmd +noall +answer spacemail.com. 60 IN

[pfx] Re: Question on the CNAME

2023-05-03 Thread Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
I am just not sure, for this domain SpaceMail.com, who has a CNAME to CDN for the root domain, every query to this domain will get a CNAME. for instance, This is a requirement of CNAME. If a domain has a CNAME, it can't have anything else. See RFC1034 3.6.2. There is a minor exception, the

[pfx] Question on the CNAME

2023-05-03 Thread Ken Peng via Postfix-users
Hello, I am just not sure, for this domain SpaceMail.com, who has a CNAME to CDN for the root domain, every query to this domain will get a CNAME. for instance, $ dig spacemail.com mx +nocmd +noall +answer spacemail.com. 60 IN CNAME spacemail.com.cdn.cloudflare.net. $ dig

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
I'm wondering if there should be "all-ipv4" and "all-ipv6" values to complement the "all" value and allow independent configuration of IPv4 and IPv6 without having to specify literal IP addresses. This would make "all" equivalent to "all-ipv4, all-ipv6". Just a thought bubble... On 4/05/2023

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users
On 5/3/23 15:23, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: Though perhaps this level of attention to phrasing is only applicable in Talmud scholarship... Hey, six thousand years of Talmudic scholarship can't all be wrong! :D -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Peter via Postfix-users
On 4/05/23 08:31, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: Peter via Postfix-users: Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address? From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can that be

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Peter via Postfix-users
On 4/05/23 08:31, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: Peter via Postfix-users: Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address? From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can that be

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to "inet_interfaces = " (i.e. blank)? By supplying an IP4 address and not an IPv6 address, you are effectively leaving the IPv6 setting blank. What happens with a blank field needs to be specified. how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Peter via Postfix-users: > Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address? > From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces > setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can > that be clarified (one way or the other)? In the mean

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Peter via Postfix-users
Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address? From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can that be clarified (one way or the other)? Peter On 4/05/23 04:48, Wietse Venema via

[pfx] Re: body_checks not catching all backscatter

2023-05-03 Thread Michael Grimm via Postfix-users
Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote > Thanks Peter but I will never ever, as long as I live, use anything > connected to UCEProtect. +1 Regards, Michael ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email

[pfx] Re: inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 12:48:28PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > I updated the inet_interfaces documentation anmd clarified its > relationship with smtp_bind*_address and system-chosen source IP > addresses. > > Wietse > >When smtp_bind_address and/or

[pfx] inet_interfaces documentation

2023-05-03 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
I updated the inet_interfaces documentation anmd clarified its relationship with smtp_bind*_address and system-chosen source IP addresses. Wietse When smtp_bind_address and/or smtp_bind_address6 are not specified, the inet_interfaces setting may constrain the source IP address

[pfx] Re: relocated: Allow custom message

2023-05-03 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Paul Menzel via Postfix-users: > Dear Postfix users, > > > Some of our users, that relocate, ask for a custom message over the > current one: > > user has moved to new_location > > For example: > > This address is out of service. For business please contact >

[pfx] Re: relocated: Allow custom message

2023-05-03 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:53:06PM +0200, Paul Menzel via Postfix-users wrote: > Some of our users, that relocate, ask for a custom message over the > current one: > > user has moved to new_location > > For example: > > This address is out of service. For business please contact >

[pfx] Re: relocated: Allow custom message

2023-05-03 Thread Paul Menzel via Postfix-users
Dear Matus, Thank you for your reply. Am 03.05.23 um 15:02 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users: On 03.05.23 14:53, Paul Menzel via Postfix-users wrote: Some of our users, that relocate, ask for a custom message over the current one:    user has moved to new_location For

[pfx] Re: postconf -M foo/unix='foo unix ...' get segfault if multiple entries exist in master.cf

2023-05-03 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
SATOH Fumiyasu (TSUCHIDA Fumiyasu) via Postfix-users: > I see the following problems. > > 1. `postconf -M bar/unix='foo unix ...'` will duplicates entries in master.cf. > 2. `postconf -M foo/unix='foo unix ...' get segfault if multiple entries > exist in master.cf. Both problems with master.cf

[pfx] Re: relocated: Allow custom message

2023-05-03 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 03.05.23 14:53, Paul Menzel via Postfix-users wrote: Some of our users, that relocate, ask for a custom message over the current one: user has moved to new_location For example: This address is out of service. For business please contact funct...@company.example.net, or

[pfx] relocated: Allow custom message

2023-05-03 Thread Paul Menzel via Postfix-users
Dear Postfix users, Some of our users, that relocate, ask for a custom message over the current one: user has moved to new_location For example: This address is out of service. For business please contact funct...@company.example.net, or n...@private.example.net for private

[pfx] Re: Hello Baknu of DANE-for-SMTP?

2023-05-03 Thread Ken Peng via Postfix-users
Please contact Dennis: dennis baaten.com regards > > Hello, > > is Baknu, the author of https://github.com/baknu/DANE-for-SMTP around here? > Or does someone know her/his personal email address and can forward this > message as I´d like to get in contact? > Thanks, > > Joachim > --

[pfx] Hello Baknu of DANE-for-SMTP?

2023-05-03 Thread Joachim Lindenberg via Postfix-users
Hello, is Baknu, the author of https://github.com/baknu/DANE-for-SMTP around here? Or does someone know her/his personal email address and can forward this message as I´d like to get in contact? Thanks, Joachim ___ Postfix-users mailing list --

[pfx] Re: body_checks not catching all backscatter

2023-05-03 Thread Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users
* Peter via Postfix-users [2023-05-03 07:45]: > On 28/04/23 03:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my > > body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm getting right now. > > Oh yuck. > >

[pfx] Re: inbound failures only from outbound.protection.outlook.com. Cert issue in this log?

2023-05-03 Thread PGNet Dev via Postfix-users
I changed the preferred chain here, and for all my domains (thx o/ !). it certainly didn't hurt. Presumably you then also *force* renewed the certificate chain. yes After the dns cleanup, switching BACK the preferred chain didn't reinit the issue. Did you *force* renewal at that point?

[pfx] Re: body_checks not catching all backscatter

2023-05-03 Thread Ken Peng via Postfix-users
May 3, 2023 at 4:26 PM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users" wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28/04/23 03:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my > > > > body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm

[pfx] Re: body_checks not catching all backscatter

2023-05-03 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 28/04/23 03:59, Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote: > I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I can't find out why my > body_checks doesn't catch all the backscatter I'm getting right now. May 3, 2023 at 1:43 PM, "Peter via Postfix-users" wrote: I've found that the best way