Hi everyone,Thanks a lot for your feedback. I learned a lot. So I’ll forget the whole thing. I have a last question, though: are there disadvantages of using a catchall compared to not using it, just letting messages bounce when the address does not exist instead?I notice that I don’t get spam with
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 02:49:33AM +0200, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
> I know that I'm not impartial as a Postfix fan for many years, but in
> my opinion it's undeniable that the Postfix project (Wietse, you and
> other contributors) have placed an importance on documentation that is
>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:10:41PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
> :
> |On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> ...
> |No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
> |maximum.
> |
> |>|> Letting aside
On 13/07/2024 02:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 12:01:38AM +0200, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
I checked https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html and I can see:
smtpd_sasl_type (default: cyrus)
The SASL plug-in type that the Postfix SMTP serv
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 12:01:38AM +0200, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
> I checked https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html and I can see:
>
> smtpd_sasl_type (default: cyrus)
> The SASL plug-in type that the Postfix SMTP server should use for
> authentication. The available types are
On 12/07/2024 23:56, John Levine wrote:
It appears that John Fawcett via Postfix-users said:
I didn't see anywhere what your value of smtpd_sasl_type is (as
applicable to the sasl type used by the smtp server.
Bingo. Thanks.
In my defence, if you look at https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.h
It appears that John Fawcett via Postfix-users said:
>I didn't see anywhere what your value of smtpd_sasl_type is (as
>applicable to the sasl type used by the smtp server.
Bingo. Thanks.
In my defence, if you look at https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
which purports to list all of the mai
On 12/07/2024 23:13, John R. Levine via Postfix-users wrote:
Hi, now that Viktor spotted the config error and fixed yesterday's
problem, I'm back with what I hope is another dumb question. Having
wrestled Cyrus authentication to a draw, now I'm trying Dovecot which
I would have hoped would be
Hi, now that Viktor spotted the config error and fixed yesterday's
problem, I'm back with what I hope is another dumb question. Having
wrestled Cyrus authentication to a draw, now I'm trying Dovecot which I
would have hoped would be easier. It's the same Debian box.
First I set up Dovecot an
postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
:
|On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...
|No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
|maximum.
|
|>|> Letting aside the "extended MAIL" client command that i never have
|>|> seen, what i would hope
one point was badly worded below, the following is better:
If you accepted both valid and invalid recipients your reject would be
for both recipients. (I implied the reject went to the receipient which
is nonsense).
On 12/07/2024 16:59, John Fawcett via Postfix-users wrote:
On 12/07/2024 1
* John Fawcett via Postfix-users:
> On 12/07/2024 15:30, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> > "My advice true, forget this!" (Alvina)
>
> I agree with the advice but have some doubts about the milter
> solution.
I don't dare call it a solution, nor was it meant as such. Like I wrote,
thi
On 12/07/2024 15:30, Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users wrote:
I can imagine a custom milter which stores message data, rejects the
original SMTP delivery attempt after the end of the DATA phase, and
later re-injects the captured data in some fashion (not necessarily
using SMTP), but this way
On 2024-07-12 at 09:30:33 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:30:33 +0200)
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I can imagine a custom milter which stores message data, rejects the
original SMTP delivery attempt after the end of the DATA phase, and
later re-injects the captured d
On 2024-07-12 at 04:55:08 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:55:08 +)
Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
On 11 Jul 2024, at 20:22, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 2024-07-11 at 02:42:26 UTC-0400 (Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:42:26 +)
Francis Augusto M
* Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users:
> I want that mail sent to users who do not have a valid address (like
> when they are not on ldap) to bounce back, like it happens by default,
> but I’d also like these mail to be delivered to an specific mailbox.
>
> As you said, if I use catc
Dnia 12.07.2024 o godz. 08:55:08 Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via
Postfix-users pisze:
> I want that mail sent to users who do not have a valid address (like
> when they are not on ldap) to bounce back, like it happens by
> default, but I'd also like these mail to be delivered to an specific
>
On 12/07/2024 07:17, Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 11 Jul 2024, at 20:22, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 2024-07-11 at 02:42:26 UTC-0400 (Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:42:26 +)
Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
On 11 Jul 2024, at 20:22, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
wrote:
On 2024-07-11 at 02:42:26 UTC-0400 (Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:42:26 +)
Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
I was wondering - is it possible to bounce e-mails for non-existent
addresses wh
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 10:00:39AM +0800, Jeff Pang via Postfix-users wrote:
> > But, another option, which I'd prefer whenever possible, is to route the
> > messages via a relay host that does have DNS.
> >
> > main.cf:
> > # Punt external mail to a relay that can do DNS
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
