On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:22:46AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
You truly need to ask whoever runs that other server to explain why they
believe your server is misconfigured if you want a definitive answer.
On 18.01.19 07:06, Mayuresh wrote:
This is certainly strangest of the mailing lists I ever
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:22:46AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> You truly need to ask whoever runs that other server to explain why they
> believe your server is misconfigured if you want a definitive answer.
This is certainly strangest of the mailing lists I ever participated in. I
am certainly
On 17 Jan 2019, at 11:03, Mayuresh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the
bounced
mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
But an additional remark gmail makes is "the remote server
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
> > mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
> >
> > But an additional remark gmail makes is "the remote server is
> > misconfigured".
> >
> >
Mayuresh:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:25:42AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > reject, with error code:
> > http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html (section: REJECT ACTIONS)
> >
>
> The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
> mail to gmail confirms that was the
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:25:42AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> reject, with error code:
> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html (section: REJECT ACTIONS)
>
The default code of 5.7.1 is the one I want as well. Log and the bounced
mail to gmail confirms that was the one that was used.
But an
Mayuresh:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:14:37AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > insiders_only = check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/insiders,
> > reject
>
> On above line if I replace reject with reject_unauth_destination it
> becomes permissive rather than rejecting.
>
> What is the
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:14:37AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> insiders_only = check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/insiders, reject
On above line if I replace reject with reject_unauth_destination it
becomes permissive rather than rejecting.
What is the exact difference between
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:14:37AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> All I suggested was to split smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> and use smtpd_relay_restrictions for the spam blocks.
>
> That was, TO SPLIT smtpd_recipient_restrictions, NOT TO REMOVE
> the hash maps.
Ok, thanks.
Mayuresh
Mayuresh:
> Sure. Basically I see only one hash in your snippet - that of the
> protected destinations. I did not notice a hash of senders allowed to send
> to the protected destinations. Am I missing something?
Original example:
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 08:58:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mayuresh:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:31:44PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > This example can be simplified by using smtpd_relay_restrictions
> > > (Posfix 2.10 and later).
> > >
> > > smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> > >
Mayuresh:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:31:44PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This example can be simplified by using smtpd_relay_restrictions
> > (Posfix 2.10 and later).
> >
> > smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> > permit_mynetworks
> > permit_sasl_authenticated
> >
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:31:44PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This example can be simplified by using smtpd_relay_restrictions
> (Posfix 2.10 and later).
>
> smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks
> permit_sasl_authenticated
> reject_unauth_destination
>
Mayuresh:
> I am using postfix 3.1.4 on NetBSD 8.
>
> I am trying the idea of setting up a mailing list for a fairly static
> group of size not exceeding around 300, with postfix. I am doing this on a
> VPS server and want a solution that is conservative on resource footprint,
> hence considering
I am using postfix 3.1.4 on NetBSD 8.
I am trying the idea of setting up a mailing list for a fairly static
group of size not exceeding around 300, with postfix. I am doing this on a
VPS server and want a solution that is conservative on resource footprint,
hence considering doing it with MTA
15 matches
Mail list logo
