On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
> I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
> (after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
> diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
> sabotage an e-mail by inserting a sender that is un-RFC822, and there
> were errors sent to the standard error, but the return status that
> waitpid() received was 0. What's the proper way to be checking for
> errors generated by sendmail? This could lead to lost mail, since silent
> errors will allow for mail to be deleted when it is presumed sent.
Postfix works hard to atomically spool the message to the "maildrop"
directly with the least fuss possible. Any errors after that are reported
via a bounce.
If sendmail(1) is unable to en-queue a message, it reports an error.
In all other cases (message en-queued), error reporting is asynchronous.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
