On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> john mickler:
>> I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
>>
>> In our current setup we have:
>>
>> INBOUND
>> a.mx --
>> b.mx
I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
In our current setup we have:
INBOUND
a.mx --
b.mx mail
c.mx --
OUTBOUND
{local servers} -->
remote-smtp-auth --> smtp --> {INTERNET}
a.mx, b.mx, c.mx do not handle local delivery, they only pass
"acceptable" mail b
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:22 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> john mickler a écrit :
>> The pcre example above indeed passes the newline through as mentioned.
>> Here's an adjusted expression to fit my situation, as well as an
>> example header afte
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It should work if the newline is part of a ${n} sub-pattern match:
>
># ${3} matches Newline + folding white-space
>/^(Received): (.*?)(\n[\t\x20])(.*)$/
>${1}: ${2}${3}(my comment)${3}${4}
>
> With t
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You need REPLACE, not REWRITE.
>
> See http://riseuplabs.org/privacy/postfix/; ignore the patch section and
> scroll down to "Postfix 2.3 and later". Copy and modify as necessary to
> meet your needs.
Thanks for the poin
Hi All,
I have a question pertaining to message headers on outbound mail from
remote smtp auth'd clients. I have been asked to adjust our mail systems to
"anonymize" said remote clients. Using mail sent from an Iphone as an example,
the headers on the receiving end show:
Received: from [10.176.
