r or user.
>
> I've read the "Restricting the scope of "success" notifications" topic at
> http://www.postfix.org/DSN_README.html#scope and I'd like to ask you about
> some details:
>
> 1) if I turn off the DSN for the networks outside of $mynetwork
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
If filter was able to strip NOTIFY=, we'd have fine control over when to
send notifications...
On 31.07.17 07:14, Wietse Venema wrote:
There is an example that modifies DSN commands in
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_command_filter
That means we could use
n nonexistent server
or user.
I've read the "Restricting the scope of "success" notifications" topic at
http://www.postfix.org/DSN_README.html#scope and I'd like to ask you about
some details:
1) if I turn off the DSN for the networks outside of $mynetwork, do I
Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> If filter was able to strip NOTIFY=, we'd have fine control over when to
> send notifications...
There is an example that modifies DSN commands in
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_command_filter
Wietse
Tomas Macek:
> Hello, our system is sometimes under attack of spammers using
> "NOTIFY=SUCCESS" param in "rcpt to: " header. And because of a random From
> address, the DSN message obviously goes to an nonexistent server
> or user.
>
> I've
On 31.07.17 09:16, Tomas Macek wrote:
Hello, our system is sometimes under attack of spammers using
"NOTIFY=SUCCESS" param in "rcpt to: " header. And because of a random
From address, the DSN message obviously goes to an nonexistent server
or user.
I've read the
Hello, our system is sometimes under attack of spammers using
"NOTIFY=SUCCESS" param in "rcpt to: " header. And because of a random From
address, the DSN message obviously goes to an nonexistent server
or user.
I've read the "Restricting the scope of "suc
