Steve:
> Let me see. what I am asking for *IS* a safety catch. I'm asking for the
> MTA *NOT* to generate Postscatter if an error is made. I'm sure any arms
> dealer would be happy to fit a weapon with a safety catch to stop me
> killing someone if I happen to be adjusting the gun and not trying to
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 16:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Genius coders often don't see why something matters to an end user.
> > They get stuck in arguing the semantics.
>
> It is impossible to communicate effectively without usi
On Jun 29, 2009, at 3:51 PM, "EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk" > wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 15:23 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Please don't feed the trolls. :)
Oh yawn. Is that the best you can do? Can you not contribute something
useful? I don't think you are really worth the effort
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> Genius coders often don't see why something matters to an end user.
> They get stuck in arguing the semantics.
It is impossible to communicate effectively without using well defined
terms...
Maybe you should look up the meaning of '
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 21:36 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> 2821
Indeed. I'm glad you pointed that out;
4.2.5 Reply Codes After DATA and the Subsequent .
When an SMTP server returns a positive completion status (2yz code)
after the DATA command is completed with ., it accepts
responsibility
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 15:13 -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:24 -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
> >
> > Whilst Wietse's Postfix mostly rocks you need to drop that 'God' like
> > arse licking Terry. It makes you look a tit dude. If something sucks it
> > sucks. No matter who wrote
Le Mon 29/06/2009, EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk disait
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:56 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote:
> > >>> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> > >>> switch of bounce/ndr messages.
> >
> > >> Yes,
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:56 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> >>> switch of bounce/ndr messages.
>
> >> Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
>
> > So does the notion of 'Before Queue
Please don't feed the trolls. :)
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:24 -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
>
> Whilst Wietse's Postfix mostly rocks you need to drop that 'God' like
> arse licking Terry. It makes you look a tit dude. If something sucks it
> sucks. No matter who wrote it, who's project it is, or the cost of it.
I appreciate Wietse'
On 6/29/2009, EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
> And this come to think of it: strict_rfc821_envelopes
> We can disable.
? It is disabled by default.
If you mean you can enable this, you should be aware it *will* block
legitimate mail.
That said, it has nothing to do with your desir
On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote:
>>> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
>>> switch of bounce/ndr messages.
>> Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
> So does the notion of 'Before Queue Filtering'. I think it goes
> something like 'You must decide to accept
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 19:41 +0100, Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:29 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > > You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> > > switch of bounce/ndr messages.
> >
> > Y
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:29 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> > switch of bounce/ndr messages.
>
> Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
So does the notion of
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 14:24 -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve, you know the answer to this question: I will repeat it once
> >> more time. Don't reject mail after accepting it.
> >>
> >>Wietse
> > Wietse,
> >
> > You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> switch of bounce/ndr messages.
Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
Otherwise, the CEO of your new biggest prospect will never know that his
'I'll take it!'
>>
>> Steve, you know the answer to this question: I will repeat it once
>> more time. Don't reject mail after accepting it.
>>
>> Wietse
> Wietse,
>
> You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
> switch of bounce/ndr messages. Mail admins are totally perfect an
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 12:52 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 11:32 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > > > Appreciate that - but to do this defeats the object of rejecting mail at
> > > > SMTP t
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 11:32 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > > Appreciate that - but to do this defeats the object of rejecting mail at
> > > SMTP time (to avoid the bounce in the first place). What appears to
> >
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 11:32 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > Appreciate that - but to do this defeats the object of rejecting mail at
> > SMTP time (to avoid the bounce in the first place). What appears to
> > happening is the spambot sending the mail does n
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> Appreciate that - but to do this defeats the object of rejecting mail at
> SMTP time (to avoid the bounce in the first place). What appears to
> happening is the spambot sending the mail does not hang around for the
> 250 OK at the end of the .. If it did,
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 08:20 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > I've read a few archive posts regarding the generation of bounce/ndr
> > messages and I can understand some of the cutting remarks such as
'don't
> > accept mail for invalid
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> I've read a few archive posts regarding the generation of bounce/ndr
> messages and I can understand some of the cutting remarks such as 'don't
> accept mail for invalid users in the first place'.
Yep - but accepting for invalid user
Hi,
I've read a few archive posts regarding the generation of bounce/ndr
messages and I can understand some of the cutting remarks such as 'don't
accept mail for invalid users in the first place'.
That aside, is it actually possible to stop the SENDING (or the
generation) of NDR/Bounce messages.
24 matches
Mail list logo
