* Wietse Venema [2012-09-11 19:23 -0400]:
> Even if the local delivery agent rejected non-existent extensions,
> Postfix would still have to stop "invalid" addresses at the SMTP
> daemon to avoid becoming a backscatter source.
Indeed, that's what I am trying to assure (not becoming a backscatter
On 9/11/2012 4:33 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> David J. Weller-Fahy:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
>> * Noel Jones [2012-09-10 23:23 -0400]:
>>> On 9/10/2012 9:20 PM, David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
1) Am I correct that blocking recipient addresses which consist of
an existing user with an
David J. Weller-Fahy:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Noel Jones [2012-09-10 23:23 -0400]:
> > On 9/10/2012 9:20 PM, David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
> > > 1) Am I correct that blocking recipient addresses which consist of
> > > an existing user with an extension not defined by that user (in a
> >
* Noel Jones [2012-09-10 23:23 -0400]:
> On 9/10/2012 9:20 PM, David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
> > 1) Am I correct that blocking recipient addresses which consist of
> > an existing user with an extension not defined by that user (in a
> > .forward-extension file) is not possible using Postfix using j
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/2012 9:20 PM, David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
> I want to confirm something I came across while playing with a
> test Postfix/Dovecot configuration. First, I am using Postfix
> 2.9.1 installed on a fully updated Debian stable (the backports
> vers
I want to confirm something I came across while playing with a test
Postfix/Dovecot configuration. First, I am using Postfix 2.9.1
installed on a fully updated Debian stable (the backports version is
2.9.1-2~bpo60+1).
I need to reject recipient-extension addresses not specifically allowed
by a .f
