On 6/28/2019, 12:52:55 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
> The solution is to repackage messages as attachments inside entirely new
> messages, which isn't really forwarding but remailing.
? Sounds like 'forward as attachment' to me...
On 8/17/2017, 9:28:00 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> This is nice in theory but doesn't work in practice,
This statement is most assuredly not true in a general sense.
The reality is, it works very well in the vast majority of cases.
> because not every sender particularly closely follows the app
On 8/17/2017, 8:56:53 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> I have a single secondary MX at a domain controlled by another competent
> individual whom I know. It's useful in the event of a sustained service
> outage or other delivery problems (say, if the main application server
> went down and I had to r
On 8/17/2017, 8:38:18 AM, Chris Green wrote:
> What sort of strategies are available for coping with the (rare)
> disconnections of a few hours that occasionally occur? I know that
> SMTP delivery is fairly robust and, as far as I know, the backing off
> and retrying seems to work pretty well but
On 11/17/2016 2:22 AM, Voytek wrote:
> just noticed some email sent from gmail/google bouncing from my server as
> sorbs RBL had that server/host listed;
>
> Nov 17 12:56:47 emu postfix/smtpd[16381]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail-ua0-f170.google.com[209.85.217.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavaila
On 11/15/2016 6:11 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
> Be aware that if you use reject_unknown_helo_hostname you will have a
> steady stream of cases for which you will have to make special
> exceptions. How steady that stream is depends more on your volume and
> diversity of legitimate mail than on how he
On 8/24/2016 4:33 AM, Alex JOST wrote:
> Am 23.08.2016 um 14:29 schrieb Lucius Rizzo:
>
>> I cannot praise Barracuda enough. Its absolutely necessary if you run a
>> busy MTA these days and have not given up control to Office365,Google :)
>
> I have seen Barracudas rejecting empty envelope sende
On 6/17/2016 10:05 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
> [mozilla.org using SORBS as a veto]
>
> Looks like they disabled SORBS.
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1280451#c5
Yes, thankfully he reconsidered after I begged...
Thanks, and sorry for the noise...
Hello,
I've been experiencing and on/off again problem with my shared dreamhost
account IP block getting listed by SORBS.
The only reason I know this is because apparently the Mozilla list
maintainers have configured all of the Mozilla discussion lists to
outright BLOCK based on being listed by d
On 5/19/2016 1:50 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> We have a situation where some party is harvesting our employees'
> mailbox names and using them for a directed brute force attack against
> our SMTP servers. In order dodge this we have undertaken to rename of
> user mailboxes.
Trying for the life o
10 matches
Mail list logo
