Hi Wietse,
I can add a debug log that a specific table is skipped for a specific name.
Ah yes, that's a better fix. That would take care of my confusion with the
logging.
Do you have any thoughts on postconf(5) describing partial key lookups in the
descriptions for check_*_access without me
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 01:20:00PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Obsoleted by automatic negotiation in the SSL code:
> >
> > - smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file = auto
> > - smtpd_tls_eecdh_grade = auto
> >
> > [ We could delete the underlying support code for the explicit
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> > Over 25 years, Postfix has accumulated some features that
> > are essentially obsolete.
> >
> > - permit_mx_backup is fundamentally incompatible with recipient
> > addre
Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32 -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > - masquerade_domains complicates table-driven address validation.
> > Log a deprecation warning with compatibility_levels>=3.9.
>
>
> What's the alternative for masquerade_domai
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Geert Hendrickx via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32 -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > - masquerade_domains complicates table-driven address validation.
> > Log a deprecation warning with compatibility_levels>=3.9.
>
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Over 25 years, Postfix has accumulated some features that
> are essentially obsolete.
>
> - permit_mx_backup is fundamentally incompatible with recipient
> address validation. There is no way to work around that w
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:23:32 -0500, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> - masquerade_domains complicates table-driven address validation.
> Log a deprecation warning with compatibility_levels>=3.9.
What's the alternative for masquerade_domains ?
Geert
Over 25 years, Postfix has accumulated some features that
are essentially obsolete.
- permit_mx_backup is fundamentally incompatible with recipient
address validation. There is no way to work around that with
reject_unverified_recipient, because that requires that a domain
is reachable, and in th
Akshay Pushparaj via Postfix-users:
>
>
> >> I would like to know if i can configure postfix to forward mails if user
> >> not found in local recipient table.
> >
> > That is possible (with static: mapping) but not a good idea.
> May i know why it's not a good idea?
Forwarding ALL recipients no
Jakob Cornell via Postfix-users:
> If I understand right the non-indexed skip is implemented by the
> 'continue' at global/maps.c:199, so a flag could be added to track
> whether execution has passed line 199 and if not, the log statement
> at 221 could be skipped.
I can add a debug log that a spe
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
> is 213.198.74.82 listed in local_header_rewrite_clients ?
That was it, many thanks.
Sorry for replying out of thread, but somehow I got unsubscribed from the list,
probably because I had my mail config messed up for too long so and there were
too man
On 13.02.24 09:39, Aleksandar Ivanisevic via Postfix-users wrote:
so far so good, but on mail2.v2.eentf.com:
masquerade_classes = envelope_sender, header_sender, header_recipient
masquerade_domains = 2e-systems.com
[root@mail2.v2] fgrep 943B8CCEE05 /var/log/maillog
Feb 13 08:32:38 mail2 postfi
> Can I see some evidence before I sink a bunch of time into answering
> a question?
ok, origin server has:
myhostname = STATS2.2e-systems.com
mydomain = stats.2e-systems.com
myorigin = $mydomain
relayhost = v2.eentf.com:587
Feb 13 09:32:38 STATS2 postfix/pickup[1724826]: 61C241CE21: uid=
13 matches
Mail list logo
