Postfix Address Verification

[Rob Sterenborg]

>> Just a thought before going there: I didn't see much of your PF
>> config on this list apart from some snippets (that doesn't
>> automagically mean that I would be able to help you if you did post
>> more of it). I can understand that and it is your good right not to
>> show it but it's hard to support a config you don't fully know.
>> When going to the Postfix list, be prepared to explain what you've
>> already done and to post the (sanitized) output of postconf -n, maybe
>> other (sanitized) information. The problem may be completely
>> something else that we haven't thought of because the rest of the PF
>> config is unknown to us. Some PF guru on that list will most likely
>> want to see it to support you.
> 
> 
> From personal experience, if you post the 'sanitized' version of
> "postconf -n' rather than the full output of that command, you leave
> yourself open to abuse.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that; I'm not native English: I guess
"sanitize" was not the correct word.. I meant to say what you are saying
below but your comment is more in depth.

What I don't understand however, is how I would be open to abuse by
sending a sanitized version op postconf -n instead of the original
output. The full original output certainly can contain information you
don't want to spread on the list. With sanitized I meant that the output
of postconf -n would have that information obfuscated.

> If you do decide to obscure domain names, be sure to do it
> consistently throughout the file. DO NOT obscure IP addresses. 
> 
> It would behoove you to post the complete output of:
> 
> 1) postconf -n
> 2) Complete list of modifications to master.cf
> 3) Relevant mail log entries.
> 
> You may need to run Postfix in debug mode. Someone will inevitably
> inform you of that detail if it needs to be done.
> 
> As a long time user of Postfix, I can attest to the assistance I have
> received on their forum, provided I played by their rules.

Grts,
Rob