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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
>
--
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 --
* 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.
>
>
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?
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
