On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:51:43AM +0530, hyndavirap...@bel.co.in wrote:
> Does postfix support Read receipts? If so, how to do?
Yes, mostly by doing nothing (except perhaps rewriting the requested
notification address as a sender address via canonical_maps or
smtp_generic_maps).
Read receipts a
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:48:10AM +0530, thirumalkumarkanakur...@bel.co.in
wrote:
> > thirumalkumarkanakur...@bel.co.in wrote:
> >
> > > In that case how to ensure that the mail has reached destination.
> >
> > You can't. Success notices are at the discretion of the destination,
> > and there
HI,
Does postfix support Read receipts? If so, how to do?
Hyndavi
Every 3000 Sheets of paper costs us a tree.. Save trees... Conserve
Trees. Don't print this email or any Files unless you really need to
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this electronic messag
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 03:31:21PM +0530,
>
thirumalkumarkanakur...@bel.co.in wrote:
>
>> In that
case how to ensure that the mail has reached destination.
>>
Because in my case relay server is sending success notification even it
>> is
>> unable to deliver the mail to the
destination.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29:03AM +0900, Akihiro Koike wrote:
> We are a registry operator of new generic top-level domain(gTLD).
> Therefore we are interested in the impact of new gTLDs.
> I'd like your thoughts on what kind of impact the appearance of new
> gTLDs has on software implementation.
Dear All,
We are a registry operator of new generic top-level domain(gTLD).
Therefore we are interested in the impact of new gTLDs.
I'd like your thoughts on what kind of impact the appearance of new
gTLDs has on software implementation.
Best regards.
--
Akihiro
Hi,
"From:" is a value in the header, it is passed during DATA. You need to
build a script (for Postfix) to compare From: against sender=, sasl_sender=
(parameters in Postfix).
Explicit rejections are good for ISPs and legit senders, not for spammers.
If you return a SMTP rejection, the spammer w
Am 15.06.2014 23:53, schrieb Eliezer Croitoru:
> On 06/15/2014 11:11 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> what you describe is*the minimum* requirement of a sane MTA
>> you must not allow senders you would not accept incoming messages
>> and no - there are no exceptions for whatever user
> I am not su
On Monday, June 16, 2014 00:53:14 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 06/15/2014 11:11 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> > what you describe is*the minimum* requirement of a sane MTA
> > you must not allow senders you would not accept incoming messages
> > and no - there are no exceptions for whatever user
>
On 06/15/2014 11:11 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
what you describe is*the minimum* requirement of a sane MTA
you must not allow senders you would not accept incoming messages
and no - there are no exceptions for whatever user
I am not sure you understand it but there is little doubt we are talkin
Am 15.06.2014 22:48, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
>> header_checks is not designed for such things
>> it's just limited basic functionality
>>
>> consider to use a policy-daemon with more features
>
> Rather: a milter. A policy-daemon doesn't see the mails' contents.
agreed - until now no need for
> header_checks is not designed for such things
> it's just limited basic functionality
>
> consider to use a policy-daemon with more features
Rather: a milter. A policy-daemon doesn't see the mails' contents.
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 Mün
Am 15.06.2014 22:01, schrieb Eliezer Croitoru:
> I Have been reading:
> http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html
> http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html
> http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
>
> And I am still unsure on how to go one step forward..
> I wa
I Have been reading:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
And I am still unsure on how to go one step forward..
I want to allow my local SMTP authenticated users to be able to s
> My preferred format would look something
> like this:
>
> 2014-06-14__14-01-23.sender_subject.hostname
Other people have already pointed out that this breaks when two
messages arrive in the same second. And what should happen when a
sender address contains a "_" character?
If the idea is to
15 matches
Mail list logo