In message <20141009141819.go13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
>> problem for me. And I guess that executing my policy server as
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
> problem for me. And I guess that executing my policy server as part of
> smtpd_data_restrictions will also allow me to turn back on the
> smtpd_delay_re
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:57PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > That delay, in and of itself is not really a problem for me. What
> > _is_ a bit of a problem is the fact that smtpd_delay_reject doesn't
> > merely cause anything listed under smtpd_sender_restrictions to be
> > delayed until such t
In message <543614e5.6060...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>On 10/8/2014 8:11 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> That delay, in and of itself is not really a problem for me. What
>> _is_ a bit of a problem is the fact that smtpd_delay_reject doesn't
>> merely cause anything listed under s
On 10/8/2014 8:11 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I posted these questions recently, but either nobody saw my posting
> or else nobody thought that these questions wre worth of a reply.
>
> On the chance that it was the former, I am posting these questions
> again... because I still do need answe
I posted these questions recently, but either nobody saw my posting
or else nobody thought that these questions wre worth of a reply.
On the chance that it was the former, I am posting these questions
again... because I still do need answers.
=
