Liam put forth on 11/6/2010 10:39 PM:
> Websocket is a new protocol to enable persistent, full-duplex, efficient
> connections to web servers.
That's vague marketing gobbledeygook. Are you trying to accomplish some
actual task other than playing with this new persistent, full-duplex,
efficient p
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> You're again mixing up clients and servers.
>
> I'd need more pertinent information to hazard a guess what you're trying to
> achieve here.
>
Here's a schematic:
[postfix] >--smtp/lmtp--> [custom gateway] >--websocket-->
[webso
On 11/07/2010 02:59 AM, Liam wrote:
I need to have postfix deliver email bound for a specific subdomain
(e.g. websock.mydomain.xyz) to a websocket gateway I'm coding (in
Node.js).
I don't know what that is, but postfix is an SMTP server.
I've looked over the architecture docs, and would app
I need to have postfix deliver email bound for a specific subdomain (e.g.
websock.mydomain.xyz) to a websocket gateway I'm coding (in Node.js).
I've looked over the architecture docs, and would appreciate input on which
delivery method is most simple/robust to implement.
The messages in question
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
> be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
> regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
> non-Posfix based e-mail servic
Noel Jones put forth on 11/6/2010 11:53 AM:
> On 11/6/2010 11:48 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 11/6/2010 11:16 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Noel Jones put forth on 11/6/2010 10:05 AM:
>> The checkdbl.pl reject rate is far less than 1 per recipient
>> per day here. Any rule that only rejects 1 out of
On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Michael J Wise put forth on 11/6/2010 11:02 AM:
>
>> Adding locks after the fact with existing contracts in place can get messy.
>> But we are thinking about it, and are working on rate limiting for some
>> customers.
>> The thing is, we don't
On 11/6/2010 11:48 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/6/2010 11:16 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 11/6/2010 10:05 AM:
The checkdbl.pl reject rate is far less than 1 per recipient
per day here. Any rule that only rejects 1 out of 1000
messages that pass prior rules -- regardless of th
On 11/6/2010 11:16 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 11/6/2010 10:05 AM:
On 11/6/2010 9:04 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
There's already demand for DNS lookups for header substrings. This
resulted in a header_checks plugin by Sahil, if I recall correctly.
Native support for DNS looku
Michael J Wise put forth on 11/6/2010 11:02 AM:
> Adding locks after the fact with existing contracts in place can get messy.
> But we are thinking about it, and are working on rate limiting for some
> customers.
> The thing is, we don't want to "Punish" people as such, we want to FIX THE
> PROB
Noel Jones put forth on 11/6/2010 10:05 AM:
> On 11/6/2010 9:04 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> There's already demand for DNS lookups for header substrings. This
>> resulted in a header_checks plugin by Sahil, if I recall correctly.
>>
>> Native support for DNS lookups from header_checks fragments cou
On Nov 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I'm guessing your perspective is going to be different that most users
> on this list, who are, I'm guessing, not ISPs or service providers per
> se.
Yeah.
We have about a thousand servers currently doing mail classification.
> Thus, I'm guessi
Michael J Wise put forth on 11/6/2010 9:53 AM:
> But since RFG is taking a crash course in outflow filtering, I also would be
> VERY interested in whatever suggestions the list membership might have about
> ways to do it well.
>
> Currently, the service where I am employed uses automated proces
On 11/6/2010 9:04 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
There's already demand for DNS lookups for header substrings. This
resulted in a header_checks plugin by Sahil, if I recall correctly.
Native support for DNS lookups from header_checks fragments could
look like this:
I think it's premature to design D
On Nov 6, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Hello again friends. Long time no see.
No, we were speaking yesterday, as I recall...
> I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion...
Well, yes.
> ... which seems to
> be the only kind I get into these days... on another maili
Victor Duchovni:
> There will at some point be interest in DNSWL support for verified DKIM
> "d=" domains. For now that's out of scope (milters, pre-queue filters, ...)
> I've recently starting using the OpenDKIM library, ... it is fairly easy
> to support. If there is ever interest in directly sup
Ronald F. Guilmette put forth on 11/6/2010 5:14 AM:
> Hello again friends. Long time no see.
>
> I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
> be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
> regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one pa
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
>
> Hello again friends. Long time no see.
>
> I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
> be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
> regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
> non-Posfix bas
Noel Jones put forth on 11/5/2010 11:04 AM:
> On 11/5/2010 10:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> This is now implemented with minor changes.
>
> Excellent! Looking forward to a test drive.
Excellent indeed. Thank you for implementing this Wietse.
Jerrale, it appears Wietse just solved your problem
Le 05/11/2010 09:48, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
On 2010-11-04 23:36:04 -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Yes, it will generate *some* lookups, but it doesn't say exactly
*which* lookups. That was precisely my question.
- client hostname
Hello again friends. Long time no see.
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
non-Posfix based e-mail service.
For the sake of c
Le 05/11/2010 10:03, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
[hash/cdb/...]
- if parent_domain_matches_subdomains contains smtpd_access: here, the
search list is
S = ( lab1.lab2.lab3.example.com, lab2.lab3.example.com,
lab3.example.com ..., com, 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3, 1.2, 1 )
so postfix will search for each
22 matches
Mail list logo
