Dear Viktor, dear Wietse,
thanks again for your vigilant eyes.
On 2024-01-05 19:31:35 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:46:01PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
RFC 2033 says: "The LMTP protocol is identical to the SMTP protocol [SMTP]
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> thanks for your careful review.
>
> On 2024-01-05 16:11:56 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> smtp(8):
> >>
> >>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:46:01PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > Unfortunately this says that RFC 5321 applies to LMTP deliveries,
>
> RFC 2033 says: "The LMTP protocol is identical to the SMTP protocol [SMTP]
> [HOST-REQ] with its service extensions [ESMTP], except as
Dear Wietse,
thanks for your careful review.
On 2024-01-05 16:11:56 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
smtp(8):
The Postfix SMTP+LMTP client supports multiple destinations
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Hi Viktor,
>
> On 2024-01-02 18:13:22 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> > That said, indeed the documentation is not explicit on this point, one
> > has to read "between the lines". If your technical writing skills are
> > adequate, perhaps
Hi Viktor,
On 2024-01-02 18:13:22 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
That said, indeed the documentation is not explicit on this point, one
has to read "between the lines". If your technical writing skills are
adequate, perhaps you could suggest some concise and clear text
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:12:28AM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> To avoid a potential misunderstanding: I do not see any reason to cast doubt
> on the RFC compliance of Postfix. I think the issue discussed in this thread
> rather goes beyond what is specified in RFCs. It
Hi Viktor,
On 2023-12-29 19:59:42 +0100, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
RFCs 5321, 2821 and 821 have been around long enough to expect
compliance with core elements of the SMTP specification from any
mainstream MTA, and particularly Postfix, which appears to be the most
widely
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 07:45:45PM +0100, Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > And then shows some examples that deminstarte that the using
> > MX records is mutually exclusive with using address (A or ) records.
>
> I think what bears the potential for confusion is what you mean by
Hi Wietse,
On 2023-12-29 18:36:59 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
There is no such thing as falling back to A or records after
trying MX records. The two are mutually
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
> >> Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in
Dear Wietse,
On 2023-12-15 22:17:08 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
Thanks Wietse! Your pseudo-code clarifies the approach chosen by
Postfix. What still remains unclear to me is the order in which
destinations are tried. Let us again consider
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> On 2023-12-12 15:51:58 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> >> Dear Postfix experts,
> >>
> >> checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
> >> indication how Postfix behaves in case of
On 2023-12-12 15:51:58 +0100, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
Dear Postfix experts,
checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
multiple DNS entries. Let us
Peter Wienemann via Postfix-users:
> Dear Postfix experts,
>
> checking the documentation for the relayhost parameter [0] I find no
> indication how Postfix behaves in case of multiple relay hosts with
> multiple DNS entries. Let us assume the following setting:
for each destination d in
15 matches
Mail list logo