On 12/30/2009 3:19 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>> Then do the recipient domain validity check *before* accepting and
>> queuing the message: put "reject_unknown_recipient_domain" in your
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions. This will make Postfix respond with:
>>
>> 450 4.1.2
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 04:07:01PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
My understanding is a MUA (for convenience, call it Thunderbird) will talk
to a local MTA (Postfix, of course!) to send mail. After authentication and
any other local checks, the local MTA accepts respon
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 04:07:01PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> My understanding is a MUA (for convenience, call it Thunderbird) will talk
> to a local MTA (Postfix, of course!) to send mail. After authentication and
> any other local checks, the local MTA accepts responsibility for the messag
Daniel L. Miller:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller:
> >
> >> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> > Postfix reports enhanced status codes (5.1.1 means the mailbox does
> > not exist, etc.) in standardized non-delivery notifications. See RFC
> > 3463 for an overview.
> >
> > Mail user agen
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix reports enhanced status codes (5.1.1 means the mailbox does
not exist, etc.) in standardized non-delivery notifications. See RFC
3463 for an overview.
Mail user agents can translate these standardized status codes into
Daniel L. Miller:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller:
> >
> >> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Daniel L. Miller:
> >>>
> >>> So...I unreservedly withdraw my question about an e-mail interface for
> >>> queue management. But...is there any provision for more advanced bounce
> >>>
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
So...I unreservedly withdraw my question about an e-mail interface for
queue management. But...is there any provision for more advanced bounce
processing?
I offered a solution that allows you to s
Daniel L. Miller:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller:
> >
> >> 5F47320CEC2 4338844 Mon Dec 28 13:12:09 idiotu...@amfes.com
> >> (host mail.fireprobymesa.com[65.40.152.138] said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
> >> (in reply to RCPT TO command))
> >> j
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
5F47320CEC2 4338844 Mon Dec 28 13:12:09 idiotu...@amfes.com
(host mail.fireprobymesa.com[65.40.152.138] said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
(in reply to RCPT TO command))
jeff...@fireprobymesa.com
That does no
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/29/2009 10:56 AM:
> We have a cultural confusion.
>
> I think Stan's use of "God" does not imply adolation but rather
> indicates a special role (in this case with respect to Postfix).
Correct. The "God" analogy simply implies "creator" and "supreme authority" of
Sahil Tandon:
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>
> > Sahil Tandon put forth on 12/29/2009 9:08 AM:
> >
> >> God himself? Is this a joke or are you working on some creepy,
> >> endearing biography?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
> >
> > According to Jewish an
On Dec 29, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Sahil Tandon put forth on 12/29/2009 9:08 AM:
God himself? Is this a joke or are you working on some creepy,
endearing biography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
According to Jewish and Christian belief, God is the creator of the
Sahil Tandon put forth on 12/29/2009 9:08 AM:
> God himself? Is this a joke or are you working on some creepy,
> endearing biography?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
According to Jewish and Christian belief, God is the creator of the universe,
and is all knowing of all things in the univer
On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 12/29/2009 2:44 AM:
I believe I understand where you're headed with this - but it's NOT
what
I was asking!
Hi Daniel,
Just a quick note. It's probably not a great idea to SHOUT! at Dr.
Venema, the
perso
Daniel L. Miller:
> 5F47320CEC2 4338844 Mon Dec 28 13:12:09 idiotu...@amfes.com
> (host mail.fireprobymesa.com[65.40.152.138] said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
> (in reply to RCPT TO command))
> jeff...@fireprobymesa.com
That does not seem right. You have "so
On 2009-12-28 5:17 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> When a user mistypes a remote e-mail address (not that THAT ever
> happens!), the result is typically either a "user unknown", "invalid
> recipient", or "host or domain not found" message. At least for MY
> system, with MY configuration (however fla
Daniel,
> 5F47320CEC2 4338844 Mon Dec 28 13:12:09 idiotu...@amfes.com
> (host mail.fireprobymesa.com[65.40.152.138] said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
> (in reply to RCPT TO command))
> jeff...@fireprobymesa.com
Do you have "soft_bounce=yes" configured?
(http
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 12/29/2009 2:44 AM:
> I believe I understand where you're headed with this - but it's NOT what
> I was asking!
Hi Daniel,
Just a quick note. It's probably not a great idea to SHOUT! at Dr. Venema, the
person to whom who were replying here, and who is trying to help
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I don't know what the correct terminology is for my question - please
adjust my wording as needed.
When a user mistypes a remote e-mail address (not that THAT ever
happens!), the result is typically ei
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> I don't know what the correct terminology is for my question -
> please adjust my wording as needed.
>
> When a user mistypes a remote e-mail address (not that THAT ever
> happens!), the result is typically either a "user unknown", "invalid
> recipie
Daniel L. Miller:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> I don't know what the correct terminology is for my question - please
> adjust my wording as needed.
>
> When a user mistypes a remote e-mail address (not that THAT ever
> happens!), the result is typically either a "user unkn
21 matches
Mail list logo
