* Wietse Venema via Postfix-users [241018 10:51]:
> The From/Reply-To munging are the result of standard Mailman
> workarounds for DMARC (i.e. to satisfy DKIM and SPF).
"From:", yes (for SPF, not DKIM I believe). But I don't think Reply-To
affects SPF at all, and only DKIM if the Reply-To header
* Marvin Renich via Postfix-users [241018 08:14]:
> My apologies! I had explicitly set Reply-To, and expected the mailing
> list software to _not_ replace it.
Okay, it seems that the list software _adds_ the original sender to the
existing Reply-To header. So if I don't set Reply-
tandard, that is even more so
> a pity today with that current "x via y" rewriting that places the
> original poster in Reply-To:, and for you in particular this is
>
> Reply-To: postfix-users@postfix.org, Marvin Renich
>
> Manual work in my side beyond that question
[Please do not CC me! That goes against long-standing mailing list etiquette.]
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [241017 09:31]:
>
> Marvin,
>
> Marvin Renich via Postfix-users writes:
> > [...]
> >> - Rerun a docker build & docker push as soon as the unde
* Nico Schottelius via Postfix-users [241016 20:10]:
> Package maintainers are usually split into two different approaches:
>
> - a) Some built containers directly from *their* source, only using the
> inside distribution as a help to build their own binaries.
>
> advantages:
> - always
* Peter via Postfix-users [240117 04:57]:
> On 16/01/24 17:26, Scott Kitterman via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> same work? At any rate, it's really up to someone in the Debian community
> to step up and do that, and I'm not trying to volunteer you for the job, it
Scott is an official Debian Develop
Many thanks, Scott, for keeping the official Debian postfix packages
up-to-date. It is very much appreciated by me and, I am sure, by many
others.
...Marvin
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pos
* Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users [230815 05:10]:
> Peter via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-08-15 10:44:
>
> > This is a bad idea for several reasons. If you want submission use
> > ports 465 and/or 587 as they are intended. Don't try to use a service
> > that is meant for a different purpose f
* Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users [230315 11:11]:
> On 3/15/23 10:36, Marvin Renich via Postfix-users wrote:
> > That technical issue aside, in this thread there have been two posters
> > who expressed a desire to keep the tags, one said get rid of it in
> > users, but k
* Matthias Andree via Postfix-users [230311 10:48]:
> Am 10.03.23 um 17:12 schrieb Marvin Renich via Postfix-users:
> > Additionally, every MUA that I know of recognizes a subject beginning
> > with "Re:" or "RE:" and when replying avoids duplicating this in th
* Cooper, Robert A via Postfix-users [230310 09:59]:
> I posted about the List-ID changing three days ago, but it seems to
> have gotten lost in the prefix discussion. for the record, I like
> list prefixes. It's easier to filter on subject than on headers that
> may or may not be present from an
* Mal via Postfix-users [230310 03:23]:
>
>
> On 10/03/2023 5:24 pm, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> > I was also quite happy with
> > no tags at all.
>
> +1 no tags
I wholeheartedly agree. The subject tag hinders, rather than helps,
reading list mail. The List-Id provides better
* Bill Cole [210504 15:12]:
> On 2021-05-04 at 14:55:29 UTC-0400 (Tue, 04 May 2021 14:55:29 -0400)
>
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Using Linux, postfix, dovecot.
> >
> > For sorting incoming mail into different maildir folders, i know general
> > advice is to have postfix deliver to dovecot
* PGNet Dev [200608 19:19]:
>https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/spamass-milt/
>https://github.com/mpaperno/spampd
>https://gitlab.com/glts/spamassassin-milter
>
> anyone have any current experience with any of these?
I also use the first one (Debian package spamass-milter) along wi
* Laura Smith [200524 16:00]:
> > I’ve been sort of opposed to greylisting in the past due to a
> > userbase that’s sensitive to delays, but… the spam is worse.
>
> IMHO Greylisting is rather pointless. Its a blunt tool, and not only
> that it does that unforgivable thing of annoying genuine peop
* Wietse Venema [200119 17:54]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > Postsuper isn't overflowing with options; perhaps a more flexible and
> > simpler design would be to have -e expire and -E expire and release from
> > hold (if it is held).
>
> Yes, the idea of a third option c
* Wietse Venema [200119 08:04]:
> A radically different approach would be to introduce a new 'expired'
> queue and move messages there when they need to be expired, and to
> introduce a new postqueue flag to flush the expired queue (the queue
> manager should not normally scan the expired queue be
* an...@ursc.gov.in [191031 09:00]:
> > > We have migrated to a new domain yyy.com. We also continue to receive
> > > mails on old domain xxx.com.
> > >
> > > When a sender sends a mail to a...@xxx.com (old domain), mail is
> > > received and delivered to user abcd. Abcd when he replies to all
* Bastian Blank [170322 16:27]:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:11:19PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > At 12:30 I edited main.cf to add inet_protocols = ipv4, then restarted
> > Postfix. I did not reboot or restart any other services, or (knowingly)
> > clear any dns cache.
&
* Bastian Blank [170322 15:09]:
> Moin
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:04:36PM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Mar 21 14:42:45 basil postfix/smtp[12587]: 3AF35240229:
> > to=, relay=none, delay=0.47,
> > delays=0.25/0.22/0/0, dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domai
* Noel Jones [170322 14:38]:
> On 3/22/2017 1:08 PM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Thanks, Wietse and Noel. Once the IPv4 delivery fails for some reason,
> > and Postfix tries IPv6 (which must fail for this relayhost), the message
> > is deferred. Do subsequent redelivery a
* Wietse Venema [170322 13:14]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > First, why would the DNS query correctly give the ipv4 address on Mar
> > 10, but then fail saying it could not find an ipv6 entry on Mar 21? I
> > can find no configuration change or program version change that w
I'm having a new problem with ipv6. I'm running Debian (mostly testing
release) on my laptop, with Postfix running simply to allow mutt to send
when I don't have connectivity. The relevant postconf entries (full
postconf -n below):
inet_protocols = all (default; not specified in main.cf)
relay
[For clarity, I have re-added the remainder of my email that was snipped.]
* Wietse Venema [150801 16:58]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > Whether you have one real user for all virtual users or a setup with one
> > real user for each of many virtual domains, you must still have at least
&g
* Wietse Venema [150801 15:52]:
> Marvin Renich:
> > * Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> > > Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> > > virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> > > not a login name.
* Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> not a login name.
Why do virtual_uid_maps and virtual_gid_maps require a numeric uid/gid?
Allowing names is much more robus
* Viktor Dukhovni [150723 09:17]:
> Not possible. The virtual_uid_maps parameter is a feature of the
> virtual(8) not the pipe(8) transport. And it stores a numeric uid,
> not a login name.
>
> You'll need to implement any required lookups in a wrapper
> program around the underlying maildrop t
I would like to use something like
virtual_mailbox_domains = domain1.org domain2.org
virtual_uid_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual_uids
virtual_transposrt = maildrop
with
maildrop unix - n n - - pipe
flags=DRhu user=vmail argv=/usr/bin/maildrop -d ${user_from_vir
* Marvin Renich [140722 13:12]:
> * Wietse Venema [140722 12:59]:
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > submission ...
> > -o cleanup_service=cleanup-outbound
> >
> > /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> > cleanup-outbound .. .. .. .. cleanup
> > -o s
* Wietse Venema [140722 12:59]:
> sender_bcc_maps is not implemented by smtpd(8) but by cleanup(8).
> This is consistent with the information in the manpage.
Okay, now I see it in cleanup(8); I was looking in postconf(5) under
sender_bcc_maps.
> You can work around this with:
>
> /etc/postfix/m
I have enabled the submission service in master.cf:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o syslog_name=postfix/submission
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=$mua_cl
31 matches
Mail list logo
