Damn, I fouind it earlier. Do a search for canonical, and/or lowercase
and/or regex.
It's actually funny: Back in ~2000 Weitse sent several E-mails stating
that Postfix lowercased everything because he felt it was simply
unacceptable to require end users to know what CaPiTaLiZaTiOn (he even
typed
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> --On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 11:57 PM -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> >>--On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:01 AM -0200 Henrique de Moraes
> >>Holschuh <[EMAIL P
--On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 11:57 PM -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
--On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:01 AM -0200 Henrique de Moraes
Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the cleaned up patch, against 2.1
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> --On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:01 AM -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Here's the cleaned up patch, against 2.1 CVS. It could be enhanced not to
> >touch the +fooobar part of the recipient, I suppose.
>
> I
--On Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:01 AM -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's the cleaned up patch, against 2.1 CVS. It could be enhanced not to
touch the +fooobar part of the recipient, I suppose.
I guess I'm mostly of the opinion that this is an MTA job, as mos
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Scott Smith wrote:
> OK. I finally found the note in the Postfix changelog, but that doesn't
> explain why he claims that the behavior changed without changing Postfix
> versions?
Beats me, I have no idea whatsoever...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them.
OK. I finally found the note in the Postfix changelog, but that doesn't
explain why he claims that the behavior changed without changing Postfix
versions?
Scott
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Chews? I'll take charleston
http://storm.lackluster.net/~scott/ chews for SIXTEEN MILLIO
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Scott Smith wrote:
> I am using a UNIX socket for Cyrus LMTPregardless, at some point,
> someone stated that this behavior has changed with Postfix. I am using
> 1.1.12, which up until, like, Sunday was the latest release.
Latest *stable* release. And yes, the snapshot re
I am using a UNIX socket for Cyrus LMTPregardless, at some point,
someone stated that this behavior has changed with Postfix. I am using
1.1.12, which up until, like, Sunday was the latest release.
Discussion on this list has implied that this behavior (Postfix NOT
lowercasing the username, s
Darren Joy wrote:
Now, my problem is with authentication, details :
As before, I can add to sasldb without problem using saslpasswd, and list
the users from it with sasldblistusers, see :
user: admin realm: myhost.mydomain.com mech: PLAIN-APOP
user: admin realm: myhost.mydomain.com mech: DIGEST
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Scott Smith wrote:
> So like, what's the problem? Works fine for me:
Your postfix is still downcasing the lmtp recipient. Try with lmtptest.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of R
Ok, we have progress! And new errors.
Firstly, thanks to Hajimu UMEMOTO for pointing out the hosts.allow entries
are "pop3" and "imap" and not "pop3d" and "imapd" as they used to (and
should) begrr
Now, my problem is with authentication, details :
As before, I can add to sasldb without prob
So like, what's the problem? Works fine for me:
Dec 24 02:00:15 storm postfix/qmgr[88272]: F0DACCEE0B:
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=644, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec 24 02:00:15 storm postfix/smtpd[88677]: disconnect from
gecko.roadtoad.net[209.209.8.2]
Dec 24 02:00:15 storm postfix/lmtp[88678]: F
13 matches
Mail list logo
