On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
...
Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
On 15.07.20 09:25, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
You apparently missed my
Michael Orlitzky:
> On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
> >
>
> For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
>
> postscreen_blackl
On 2020-07-14 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> It appears that the blacklist entry is superseded by the cache?
>
> ...
>
> Is that intentional? Fixable? Work-aroundable?
>
For posterity: digging into the source led me to discover the
postscreen_blacklist_action (default: ignore)
parameter
On 14.07.20 09:29, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Out postmaster/abuse addresses fall through a trapdoor at the top of
smtpd_recipient_restrictions, and every once in a while someone decides
to abuse that kindness. Yesterday I added 84.54.12.0/24 to postscreen's
blacklist to prevent them from ever reach
Out postmaster/abuse addresses fall through a trapdoor at the top of
smtpd_recipient_restrictions, and every once in a while someone decides
to abuse that kindness. Yesterday I added 84.54.12.0/24 to postscreen's
blacklist to prevent them from ever reaching the trapdoor. This morning
I was surprise
