Jeff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff:
I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
> >> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
> >
> > Reject
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
>> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
>
> Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED] o
Jeff:
> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the FRONT_END host.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access h
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Jeff:
>> >> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
>> >> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases whe
Jeff:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
> >> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
> >> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
>> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
>> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It generates bounce
Jeff:
> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It generates bounce
> notifications, which in the end will create back-scatter. The bounce
> messag
Jeff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff wrote:
We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with eac
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
>> filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
>> firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each
Jeff wrote:
We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each other
for internal mail accoss our VPN. The appliance will do smtp level
recipient
We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each other
for internal mail accoss our VPN. The appliance will do smtp level
recipient verification p
12 matches
Mail list logo
