Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <3j7vdm3rglzb...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>
Wietse:
>There is no supported API for {DNS} retry/timeout settings as far as I
>can tell. Whacking bits in the __res structure does not count.
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> Mostly, I just wanted to know if Postfix
In message <3j7vdm3rglzb...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Wietse:
>There is no supported API for {DNS} retry/timeout settings as far as I
>can tell. Whacking bits in the __res structure does not count.
>
>Maybe it can be set with environment variables, but that
>may require support to do:
>
In message
Paul C wrote:
>Postfix doesn't have any type of automatic detection of any
>malfunctioning blacklists, it may be configurable on how long to wait
>for a response, I'm not sure on that, but no dynamic changing of what
>is being used, if you think that one though, postfix shouldn't do
Wietse:
> >See "man 5 resolver" for timeouts, retry counts, etc.
>
> But clients of a typical resolver library (e.g. Postfix) may
> optionally request either more or fewer retries. No?
>
> So I was asking what Postfix does.
There is no supported API for retry/timeout settings as far as I
can te
Postfix doesn't have any type of automatic detection of any
malfunctioning blacklists, it may be configurable on how long to wait
for a response, I'm not sure on that, but no dynamic changing of what
is being used, if you think that one though, postfix shouldn't do
anything like that. Would tempt p
In message <3j7sdd1mnszb...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
>> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>>
>> >Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> >> What would happen in such a case?
Am 01.10.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
>> Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
>>> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for D
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
> >Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
> >> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for DNS responses that were
> >>
In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
"li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
>> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for DNS responses that were
>> not forthcoming?
>
>no - no answer i
Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> I have been thinking of maybe putting up an experimental
> anti-spam blocklist server. As far as the client interface,
> this would operate in the usual way, i.e. via DNS, just as
> all of the current well-known blacklists do.
>
> Due to the
I have been thinking of maybe putting up an experimental
anti-spam blocklist server. As far as the client interface,
this would operate in the usual way, i.e. via DNS, just as
all of the current well-known blacklists do.
Due to the (backend) nature of the thing however, it would
probably only pr
11 matches
Mail list logo
