Am 21.08.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On 2016-08-21 18:48, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>>> does dns servers support it aswell as idn ?
>> sombody checked modoboa ?
>
>> somebody created a ebuild for it ?
>
>> i still miss your gentoo-overlay name :=)
>
>why not write a mail to the
Am 21.08.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On 2016-08-21 18:48, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
>>> does dns servers support it aswell as idn ?
>> sombody checked modoboa ?
>
> somebody created a ebuild for it ?
>
> i still miss your gentoo-overlay name :=)
>
>
why not write a mail to the de
On 2016-08-21 18:48, Robert Schetterer wrote:
does dns servers support it aswell as idn ?
sombody checked modoboa ?
somebody created a ebuild for it ?
i still miss your gentoo-overlay name :=)
Am 21.08.2016 um 18:05 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> On 2016-08-21 17:51, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give any help as to what is likely to work?
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/postfixadmin/bugs/297/
>
> backends must understand utf-8 to make smtputf8 work imho
>
> and ye
ysql, and it works, personly i
>dont need smtputf8 here
You were able to add a UTF8 domain name (say in Greek or Hindi) to mysql?
Does it show as PUNYCODE?
We also need the "local part" or username to be UTF8. That is why we are using
Postfix 3.0
>does dns servers support
On 2016-08-21 17:51, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
Can anyone give any help as to what is likely to work?
https://sourceforge.net/p/postfixadmin/bugs/297/
backends must understand utf-8 to make smtputf8 work imho
and yes it being a problem for so long, that i just hack it to
postf
Hello list,
We are testing using the international email support in PostFix 3.0. We are
having trouble finding an administrative interface which supports this.
Postfixadmin, plesk, etc. do not seem to work.
Can anyone give any help as to what is likely to work?
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
Brett @Google:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Brett @Google:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
> > > are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
> > > library formats when com
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brett @Google:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
> > are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
> > library formats when compared to Linux.
> >
> > (runnin
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:27:26PM +1000, Brett @Google wrote:
>
> > I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
> > are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
> > library formats whe
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:27:26PM +1000, Brett @Google wrote:
> I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
> are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
> library formats when compared to Linux.
As Wietse said, nothing relevant changed in
--On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:27 PM +1000 "Brett @Google"
wrote:
Hello,
I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
library formats when compared to Linux.
(running on SunOS server 5.10
Brett @Google:
> Hello,
>
> I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
> are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
> library formats when compared to Linux.
>
> (running on SunOS server 5.10 Generic_150400-29 sun4v sparc sun4v)
The chanc
Hello,
I am upgrading 3.0.x to 3.1 it seems the build process has changed, there
are a few issues at least on solaris, maybe due to the dual 32/64 bit
library formats when compared to Linux.
(running on SunOS server 5.10 Generic_150400-29 sun4v sparc sun4v)
1. Is seems to be no longer possible t
Postfix User:
> Okay, I suppose I don't pay as close attention to release announcements as I
> should. I noticed this is another post recently:
>
> Postfix 3.0 also introduces inline: tables whose keys and values are stored
> inside main.cf
>
> I did not see any documen
On 2015-11-17 12:08, Postfix User wrote:
Okay, I suppose I don't pay as close attention to release announcements
as I
should. I noticed this is another post recently:
Postfix 3.0 also introduces inline: tables whose keys and values are
stored
inside main.cf
I did not see any document
Okay, I suppose I don't pay as close attention to release announcements as I
should. I noticed this is another post recently:
Postfix 3.0 also introduces inline: tables whose keys and values are stored
inside main.cf
I did not see any documentation on the Postfix site for that. Am I just
Am 2015-05-19 17:10, schrieb wie...@porcupine.org:
Jens Kasten:
Hallo list,
I have postfix 3.0 running and now on a read only filesystem postfix
won't start anymore.
Postfix create a file /etc/postfix/main.cf.tmp and will delete main.cf
and move main.cf.tmp to main.cf.
Can I modify
Jens Kasten:
> Hallo list,
>
> I have postfix 3.0 running and now on a read only filesystem postfix
> won't start anymore.
> Postfix create a file /etc/postfix/main.cf.tmp and will delete main.cf
> and move main.cf.tmp to main.cf.
>
> Can I modify this behavior so
Hallo list,
I have postfix 3.0 running and now on a read only filesystem postfix
won't start anymore.
Postfix create a file /etc/postfix/main.cf.tmp and will delete main.cf
and move main.cf.tmp to main.cf.
Can I modify this behavior so that read-only filesystem for config
directory
Two approaches:
1) Do what you did before Postfix 3.0.0. That stuff still works.
2) Build and install Postfix once; that is the first instance. Then
use MULTI_INSTANCE_README to create the second Postfix instance.
The two instances share the daemon_directory, command_directory,
etc., bu
directory /etc/postfix-internal ,
and in main.cf we had:
config_directory = /etc/postfix-internal
In 3.0 INSTALL instructions, I read:
***
4.6.1 - Postfix 3.0 and later
All Postfix configuration parameters can be changed by editing a Postfix
configuration file, except for one: the
Peter:
> On 02/02/2015 02:16 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The first Postfix 3.0 stable release candidate is out,
>
> Bit of confusion, the download page says it's "Postfix 3.0.0 stable
> release candidate 2", but the filename has "RC1" in the name. I
On 02/02/2015 02:16 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The first Postfix 3.0 stable release candidate is out,
Bit of confusion, the download page says it's "Postfix 3.0.0 stable
release candidate 2", but the filename has "RC1" in the name. I'm
assuming for now that it's really RC1 and not 2?
Peter
The first Postfix 3.0 stable release candidate is out, to be followed
by the Postfix 3.0 stable release in a few days time.
You can review the RELEASE_NOTES file (on the source-code mirror
sites) for a long list of improvements, from main.cf/master.cf
syntax, DNS lookup result filters, and
As the subject says, Postfix has been renamed, and the next stable
release will be Postfix 3.0. This is the result of a mostly-mechanical
edit, with human inspection after mechanical checks.
Wietse
On 2014-11-14 17:40, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Edgar Pettijohn:
>> So around August?
> Have a look at http://www.postfix.org/announcements.html, and see
> when Postfix 2.{7-11}.0 were released.
>
> Wietse
Thanks guys, so around Jan/Feb :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:26:29AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
>>> On January 15th each year Wietse sets a counter for the following
>>> year's release to zero. Each day after that he rolls a 6 sided
>>> dice, and adds the value to the
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:26:29AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > On January 15th each year Wietse sets a counter for the following
> > year's release to zero. Each day after that he rolls a 6 sided
> > dice, and adds the value to the running total. When the total
> > reaches 1278, a new rele
Edgar Pettijohn:
> So around August?
Have a look at http://www.postfix.org/announcements.html, and see
when Postfix 2.{7-11}.0 were released.
Wietse
On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:53:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>>> Is there a set release date for Postfix 3.0, or is it released when its
>>> "done"?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> On January 15
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:53:31AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Is there a set release date for Postfix 3.0, or is it released when its
> > "done"?
>
> Yes.
On January 15th each year Wietse sets a counter for the following
year's release to zero. Each day a
Patrik B?t:
> Hello!
>
> Is there a set release date for Postfix 3.0, or is it released when its
> "done"?
Yes.
Wietse
Hello!
Is there a set release date for Postfix 3.0, or is it released when its
"done"?
- Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:11:20PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> If I were in charge, I think I would look at releasing 2.12 and
> 3.0 nearly concurrently, with the difference being mainly that 2.12
> has the backward compatible checking of the conf files while 3.0
> does not and moves forward with the
On 10 Oct 2014, at 11:55 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> However with the incompatible changes in 2), I think that a major
> version number change is necessary. This may cause some delays in
> adoption, but I think it is only fair to people who have come to
> expect that upgrading Postfix is a no-brainer
Stephen Satchell:
> On 10/10/2014 12:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > It is, and always has been, called "release notes", and it will be
> > no different than with other Postfix releases. The big-ticket items
> > are detailed in INSTALL (build system) and COMPATIBILITY_README
> > (managed transition
On 10/10/2014 12:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> It is, and always has been, called "release notes", and it will be
> no different than with other Postfix releases. The big-ticket items
> are detailed in INSTALL (build system) and COMPATIBILITY_README
> (managed transition to new default settings).
Stephen Satchell:
> On 10/10/2014 10:55 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > However with the incompatible changes in 2), I think that a major
> > version number change is necessary. This may cause some delays in
> > adoption, but I think it is only fair to people who have come to
> > expect that upgrading
On 10/10/2014 10:55 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> However with the incompatible changes in 2), I think that a major
> version number change is necessary. This may cause some delays in
> adoption, but I think it is only fair to people who have come to
> expect that upgrading Postfix is a no-brainer, be
I think it is time to consider a jump in the Postfix major version
number, so that the next stable release will be Postfix 3.0 and not
2.12.
1) There are changes in the Postfix build system that are visible
only to people who build Postfix from source (mainly distribution
maintainers and some
41 matches
Mail list logo