Guys, I'm still accepting
ideas. :D
Gustav Meirinho escreveu:
If it can not be done
at
the moment, all right (I found a similar request in 2006 - message
209338).
My real problem is this:
Many customers use mail groups (virtual_alias_maps). Each
destination acco
If it can not be done at
the moment, all right (I found a similar request in 2006 - message
209338).
My real problem is this:
Many customers use mail groups (virtual_alias_maps). Each
destination account can create their own rules for releasing and
blocking, which is consulted by
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:47:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > This thread suggests that each xforward attribute also needs to be
> > made available via Milter macros (in smtpd and cleanup), and via
> > the policy delegation protocol.
>
> There seems to be some demand for
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:47:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> This thread suggests that each xforward attribute also needs to be
>> made available via Milter macros (in smtpd and cleanup), and via
>> the policy dele
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:47:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This thread suggests that each xforward attribute also needs to be
> made available via Milter macros (in smtpd and cleanup), and via
> the policy delegation protocol.
There seems to be some demand for this, but the OP seems to be a
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:55:07PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Mark Martinec:
> > > > WTF PDP?
> > >
> > > Policy delegation protocol, I suppose.
> >
> > Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no
> > more information than what has already been posted).
>
Exactly the opposite.
This would be the desired response in "PDP":
request=smtpd_access_policy
protocol_state=RCPT
protocol_name=SMTP
helo_name=some.domain.tld
queue_id=8045F2AB23
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
recipient_count=0
client_address=1.2.3.4
client_name=another.domain.tld
re
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:55:07PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mark Martinec:
> > > WTF PDP?
> >
> > Policy delegation protocol, I suppose.
>
> Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no
> more information than what has already been posted).
Then perhaps the question is about
LOL!
Sorry. PDP = Postfix Delegation Protocol.
If postfix has XForward support, why not to send xforward
information to delegation protocol?
Only a doubt, not a real problem.
Thanks again and sorry about the mess.
Gustav.
Udo Rader escreveu:
-BEGIN
PGP SI
Mark Martinec:
> > WTF PDP?
>
> Policy delegation protocol, I suppose.
Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no
more information than what has already been posted).
Wietse
> WTF PDP?
Policy delegation protocol, I suppose.
Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
| On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:19:18PM -0200, Gustav Meirinho wrote:
|
|> How can I integrate the XForward command with PDP, to have more
|> complete information of an envelope, regardless of the instance used?
|
| WTF PDP? Even
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:19:18PM -0200, Gustav Meirinho wrote:
> How can I integrate the XForward command with PDP, to have more
> complete information of an envelope, regardless of the instance used?
WTF PDP? Even if we knew what PDP was, this question is way too concise.
Please explain your a
Greetings,
How can I integrate the XForward command with PDP, to have more
complete information of an envelope, regardless of the instance used?
Thanks in advance,
Gustav Meirinho
--
14 matches
Mail list logo
