On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Charles Marcus
wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Does anyone know of any decent non-biased studies that have been done,
> hopefully relatively recently (last few years), that provide such a
> comparison?
>
> You'll have a hard time finding any unbiased studies out there, especia
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Victor Duchovni <
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Jure Simsic wrote:
>
> BLANK LINE TERMINATES THE HEADER: the content below is BODY content.
>
Thanks, just figured it out. Actually it was
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jure Simsic:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Wietse Venema
> wrote:
> >
> > > Jure Simsic:
> > > > As the list refuses me to post such long debugs, I'm splitting my
> mail in
>
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jure Simsic:
> > As the list refuses me to post such long debugs, I'm splitting my mail in
> > two:
>
> No-one here asked for DEBUG logging, so you just wasted a lot
> of electrons sending information tha
Part two:
And here it is with the reverse order (Received: before To:), hence missed
(had to delete some generic parts to post):
Sep 13 13:25:16 mta3 pfx/smtpd[16755]: [..info] connect from
unknown[10.40.0.20]
Sep 13 13:25:16 mta3 pfx/smtpd[16755]: [..info] match_hostname: unknown ~?
10.40.0.33/3
As the list refuses me to post such long debugs, I'm splitting my mail in
two:
This is application specific mail (actually some delivery reports for MMS)
and I need to do a lot of envelope and content rewrites as different
operators have rather specific approach to standards.. But luckily postfix
Hi
I'm trying to replace To: header with header_checks regexp rule. The funny
thing is, as I've figured out, the rule works perfectly if the Received:
header is after the To: header (or missing), but does nothing if it is
before the To: header. I've tried running in debug mode but couldn't get any
