Am 23.07.2013 22:04, schrieb Benny Pedersen:

Sam Flint skrev den 2013-07-21 00:34:

...

I'm using Dovecot v2, and I can't seem to find any info abut using sieve with the LDA, or the ManageSieve protocol, can you please point me un the right direction?

http://sieve.info/

and why do you need to respond days later with generic stuff with no dovecot-context to a already answered question where the asner is simply the *dovecot2* wiki?

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] Sieve info Datum: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:47:54 +0200 Von: Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net An: Mailing-List dovecot dovecot@dovecot.org

Am 21.07.2013 00:45, schrieb Sam Flint:

On Jul 20, 2013 5:39 PM, "Reindl Harald" mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:

...

Am 21.07.2013 00:34, schrieb Sam Flint:

...

I'm using Dovecot v2, and I can't seem to find any info abut using sieve with the LDA, or the ManageSieve protocol, can you please point me un the right direction?

google "dovecot sieve" leads to http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Pigeonhole/Sieve/Configuration

Thank you very muuch! The pointer on the v1 wiki pointed to a non-existent page

http://wiki2.dovecot.org/ is for version >= 2.0 many configs are completly different in v2

http://wiki.dovecot.org/ This documentation is for Dovecot v1.x, see wiki2 for v2.0 documentation

Am 24.07.2013 09:21, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:

Reindl, keep this kind of crap off the list. It benefits nobody here and simply wastes resources. Either send it off list, or better yet, don't sent it at all. You got yourself booted from Postfix-users for this type of behavior

no - i got removed because *of you* and your message below which resulted in undersatndable anger

you behaved the same way telling others they "have less to zero knowledge" with exactly this words and Wietse as well as Viktor did point you that your behavior is not that of a saint in context of provocate me and doing the same

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: Reject email Datum: Thu, 09 May 2013 09:44:36 -0500 Von: Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com Antwort an: stan@hardwarefreak.com

Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the list. However you made some invalid points that need to be corrected for those who may browse the archives in the future.

On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:

if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail

When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback to A? While RFC may require it, and some used it in the 70s and 80s, no receivers rely on fallback to A in 2013. Anyone versed sufficiently in SMTP to know of the existence of fallback to A isn't going to rely on it. They'll have proper MX records.

another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means

a) no MX record for the domain b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname

reject b) would be fine

Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time.

reject a) would be stupid

If generic and not selective then yes, but not because of fallback to A. The real problem here is legitimate send-only domains, such as some mailing lists, bulk mail campaigns, emergency alert and other notification systems, etc.

Am 24.07.2013 10:07, schrieb Simon B:

On 24 Jul 2013 09:44, "Reindl Harald" wrote:

...

Am 24.07.2013 09:21, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:

...

Reindl, keep this kind of crap off the list. It benefits nobody here and simply wastes resources. Either send it off list, or better yet, don't sent it at all. You got yourself booted from Postfix-users for this type of behavior

no - i got removed because *of you* and your message below which resulted in undersatndable anger

Really Reindl, I find myself unable to support you in any of the salient points you make because of your attitude and anger management issues. If the calm, rational email below resulted in understandable anger then you have issues best not dealt with in a public forum.

ah and "Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the list" is a good attitude followed by technical nonsense?

...

When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback to A? While RFC may require it, and some used it in the 70s and 80s, no receivers rely on fallback to A in 2013

is wrong, i came across such domains 2011 and not in the 70s and 80s period

Anyone versed sufficiently in SMTP to know of the existence of fallback to A isn't going to rely on it - They'll have proper MX records

is nice, but in the real world there are *way to much* not versed admins proven daily on several mailings-lists where you face admins never should have connected a server to the internet as well as you do not need a MX record at all if your incoming mailserver is on the A-Record

the MX-Record is for the cases where on http://your-domain/ is a website while the same machine is not your incoming mailserver