Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 11/24/2010 10:38 AM, Laszlo Kupor wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I manage a mixed mail system (postfix, sendmail, etc). > > > > Meaning ? > You shouldn't run multiple MTAs on the same system.
Eh.. Sorry.. This means: system not only "one machine". I run mailhubs to receive messages from outer world. I run mailbox servers to serving clients. I run internal filtering servers (virus, spam) I run smpt gws to send messages to the world from local users. These servers are various (because every MTA has lack support of some needed feature) If user some...@somedomain.com receive a message receive by MX-s (mailhub) and deliver to an internal mail address: someonelo...@local.otherdomain.com. One domain users split across internal servers (final destination multiple local servers) Everything works nice, but bounce. Bouncing works, but communicate the local address with the outer world which not acceptable. I can send Bounce message with MTA (postfix) but this contains delivery status in BODY. not in HEADER. (please review). This DS not an message type this is a part (not mandatory) of bounce. And source not the destination mailbox. Source is postmaster. If i want it, i can REPLACE these internal address with body_checks but this is very wrong decision because i cannot limit body checks to "bounce" messages and would cause many processor time. If i could disable including DS part in bounce (i can do with edit postfix source maybe) this will be fine, and lower cpu time than before. My question about: Can i disable DS part in bounce messages? Usual problem: user quota: If i choose bounce with LDA this would nice, but all fails permanently not temporary. If i choose bounce with Postfix: i can wait (max_queue_lifetime) to user download messages from server and, i can deliver message to user, but the user not lower the usage in max queue time Postfix send bounce message with wrong DS. This is the situation. > > I search about that, and i found body_check REPLACE solutions to hide > > internal address(IP,email), > > Addresses are not in the mail BODY - they are in the headers. These address are in BODY. > > Sensitive information: "final recipient:" "original recipient". > > > > Still headers. NO! this part of a DS do you see DS before: i quote one for you: Content-Description: Delivery report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; local.otherdomain.com X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 8A3D57D49F X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; sen...@outerworld.com Arrival-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:42:50 +0100 (CET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; somelo...@local.otherdomain.com Original-Recipient: rfc822;somelo...@local.otherdomain.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: x-unix; user unknown This is only a "example" problem with quota is higher, because this example can eliminate with good address mapping. Quota is a temporary problem and cannot eliminate only if the destination address got free space in time. This is a mime part of the message. And contains wrong information. -- Udv.: Willy PGP GNUPG/1.0 ID = 44E7F3A4 Kupor Laszlo Attila <wi...@dunanet.hu> Key fingerprint = 1294 00C9 F7ED AE32 1D2D B80A D5C9 98D6 44E7 F3A4
