On T 20 Jan, 2009, at 12:38 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
So you can hack sendmail. Exim, too, if I remember correctly.
I would not call that hack in exim case though. It is possible to
avoid all backscatter, first of all by avoiding delivery by an
external programme*. This will still leave the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Postfix. Will it do it out of the box? No. You can add hooks to Postfix using
the pre-queue content filter, milter, access policy delegation or patches so
So your answer is wrong, Postfix _doesn't_ do it.
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 1/19/2009 11:51 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
http://vda.sourceforge.net/
Just realize using this patch will void the postfix warranty (you won't
get much help on the postfix list)...
I've never personally used it so i can't vouch for it (I prefer using a
pre-queue inte
On 1/19/2009 11:51 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> http://vda.sourceforge.net/
Just realize using this patch will void the postfix warranty (you won't
get much help on the postfix list)...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Robert Schetterer wrote:
Steffen Kaiser schrieb:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own
messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people.
The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction.
Which MTA tries
Steffen Kaiser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own
messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people.
The MTA should do this during the SMTP transacti
Steffen Kaiser schrieb:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own
>> messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people.
>> The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction.
>
> Which MTA tries to deliver
You message was rejected by... no thank you, I do not want ever to see
this:
On M 19 Jan, 2009, at 10:24 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own
messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming in
On 1/18/2009 2:58 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver
> send bounces itself)?
I assume you mean respond with an smtp-reject?
My understanding of 'bounces' is they should only ever be generated by
the SENDERS MTA?
--
Best regards,
Cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2)
1) deliver -e behavior the defaut?
2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send
bounces itself)?
I have no objections again 1) and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own messages to
potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people. The MTA should do
this during the SMTP transaction.
Which MTA tries t
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2)
1) deliver -e behavior the defaut?
As long as -e still means EX_NOPERM and a new switch is picked for "send
bounce ourselves". (Unless #2 happens.)
2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver
send bou
On 1/18/09, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2)
>
> 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut?
>
> 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send
> bounces itself)?
>
> The only reason it even works like it does currently is because I just
> mostly c
13 matches
Mail list logo
