On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:39:11AM +0100, Hector Martin wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:11:17AM +0100, Hector Martin wrote:
> > Perhaps with an SRS milter, or similar content filter, assuming these
> > take extreme caution to avoid loops (never rewrite "<>" to a non empty
> > return path) and provide appropriate means for bounces to come back to
> > the original sender in most cases.
> >
> > Nothing built-in, because supporting the return path requires non-trivial
> > state.
> > [...
>
> Well, I clearly underestimated the effort required to make this work
> sanely. How about something simpler, like just rewriting the envelope
> sender to postmaster (i.e. me)? This is a small system, and bounces from
> the final destination servers should be rare. This way I'd get any such
> bounces and would be able to (manually) deal with them appropriately.
This still requires a content filter. Contortions with multi-stage
forwarding, with custom rewriting in downstream stages are possible,
but are not a good idea.
--
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.
