Am 06.02.2013 23:37, schrieb Daniel L. Miller:
> In my case I'm supporting up to 10 users
>
> Having the standard store-and-forward-with-retry operation results in calls
> like, "Daniel, I sent the message 20
> minutes ago but Barbara still didn't get it. Why are the computers broken
> again
On 2/6/2013 2:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.02.2013 23:02, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 06.02.2013 22:57, schrieb Daniel L. Miller:
Otherwise when they send a message to "u...@domian.com", the client hands it
off - the user thinks the message
actually sent when in reality they will get a r
On 2/6/2013 3:57 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> On 2/6/2013 1:53 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Daniel L. Miller:
reject_unverified_recipient will stop as soon as it has a reply
from the SMTP server (or from the local verify cache).
If that result is "4XX Come back in a few seconds"
Am 06.02.2013 23:02, schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 06.02.2013 22:57, schrieb Daniel L. Miller:
>
>> Otherwise when they send a message to "u...@domian.com", the client hands it
>> off - the user thinks the message
>> actually sent when in reality they will get a rejection message some time
Am 06.02.2013 22:57, schrieb Daniel L. Miller:
> Otherwise when they send a message to "u...@domian.com", the client hands it
> off - the user thinks the message
> actually sent when in reality they will get a rejection message some time
> later
your idea is completly broken
email is NOT inst
On 2/6/2013 1:53 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
reject_unverified_recipient will stop as soon as it has a reply
from the SMTP server (or from the local verify cache).
If that result is "4XX Come back in a few seconds", then
reject_unverified_recipient will not wait for a few seconds
Daniel L. Miller:
> > reject_unverified_recipient will stop as soon as it has a reply
> > from the SMTP server (or from the local verify cache).
> >
> > If that result is "4XX Come back in a few seconds", then
> > reject_unverified_recipient will not wait for a few seconds.
> >
>
> Thank you. Is
On 2/6/2013 1:37 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
I've been using recipient verification for some time with good
results but I think I need to make an adjustment to accommodate the
changing email world. It appears a number of servers have adopted
minimal greylisting - such that they i
Daniel L. Miller:
> >> I've been using recipient verification for some time with good
> >> results but I think I need to make an adjustment to accommodate the
> >> changing email world. It appears a number of servers have adopted
> >> minimal greylisting - such that they immediately reject initial
On 2/6/2013 12:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/6/2013 2:26 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
I've been using recipient verification for some time with good
results but I think I need to make an adjustment to accommodate the
changing email world. It appears a number of servers have adopted
minimal greyl
Am 06.02.2013 21:26, schrieb Daniel L. Miller:
> I've been using recipient verification for some time with good results but I
> think I need to make an adjustment to
> accommodate the changing email world. It appears a number of servers have
> adopted minimal greylisting - such that
> they imm
On 2/6/2013 2:26 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> I've been using recipient verification for some time with good
> results but I think I need to make an adjustment to accommodate the
> changing email world. It appears a number of servers have adopted
> minimal greylisting - such that they immediately
I've been using recipient verification for some time with good results
but I think I need to make an adjustment to accommodate the changing
email world. It appears a number of servers have adopted minimal
greylisting - such that they immediately reject initial contacts but
have a minimal timeo
13 matches
Mail list logo
