- Original Message -
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>To run a policy service on all addresses, add the
>check_policy_service directive to your smtpd restrictions at
>the
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>hm why not using mysql for the list of valid users and replication?
>mysql-replication supports SSL, the backup-mx
- Original Message -
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>Maybe a compromise?
>How about running on the main MX
>postmap -s btree:/path/verify | grep ':250 ' > file
>
>and th
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>Fundamentally, both approaches rely on talking to the primary MX,
>and therefore both approaches would suffer from errors if
- Original Message -
From: /dev/rob0
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:48:44AM -0700, Charlie Orford wrote:
>> unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = perm
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>>Charlie Orford:
>> I will run the tests and get the output for you later tonight but my
>> suspicion
>>
- Original Message -
>From: Wietse Venema
>To: Postfix users
>Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 5:38 PM
>Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>
>>Reindl Harald:
>> Am 05.07.2011 16:55, schrieb Wietse Venema:
>> > If no such problem exists, then we know that cache expirati
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Orford
To: Postfix users
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>Hi Wietse,
>
>Although the address caching should have worked as you describe, we
>found that it failed for a number
>From: Wietse Venema
>Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 9:10 PM
>Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
>
>My previous reply suffered from damage while editing. This is an
>attempt to fix it.
>
>The problem with recipients not in the verify cache is easily
>addressed with existing Post
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't really know where to post feature ideas, but this seems the only
> viable option.
>
> I was setting up a fallback MX server with Postfix and was struggling with
> preventing backscatter mail. I thought I found a
10 matches
Mail list logo
