On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> HOLD acts at the message level, not the recipient level.
> If one recipient of a multi-recipient message is put on HOLD, all
> recipients of that message will be affected.
I see. I believe the HOLD is better suited to our scenario as a
temporar
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> The HOLD action affects all recipients; you can be more specific by
> using the retry service. See the following thread:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/197989
Thanks Sahil! I'll consider it. It also makes sense, though
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> put it under smtpd_sender_restrictions so you don't have to muck
> around with your existing smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Noel,
just want to make sure: postfix 2.7 evaluates
smtpd_sender_restrictions *after* RCPT TO? Couldn't find which ver
Hello!
Will below be OK for holding messages for recipients?
Thanks, Miha
On Feb 11, 2013 7:56 PM, "Miha Valencic" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just want to double check if I am planning this correctly. We're migrating
> users from one system to another, and want to HOLD inco
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> postfwd does rate limiting, and many other features. Maybe you can
> consolidate everything into postfwd.
We'll take a deeper look at postfwd for that.
> Additionally, rate limiting is typically done on outgoing mail,
True. But there are som
So, since we need some features of policyd as well (rate limiting, for
instance), and we're already using amavis, do we chain postfwd before
policyd or vice-versa?
Thanks,
Miha.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> Policyd-weight is deprecated and doesn't even have async DNS looku
Wietse, Noel,
thanks for the prompt answers. I've been already looking at postscreen
and postfwd, but wandered if there something in the postfix
*_restrictions as well. We're using postfix 2.7, so postscreen is out.
We're looking into implementing policyd anyway, so that's probably a
good place.
