On 07/03/2011 02:37 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:14:32 +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
I would like to force all my real users to use SMTP AUTH
( SASL + LDAP ) but we have many internal mailing lists
running and I wonder if it is possible to add an exception
for that purpos
On 01/07/11 19:24, Wietse Venema wrote:
The fix is for the client to append.LF> to the message
content before writing it to the network.
The workaround is for the client to turn off Nagle delays.
Thanks. That was it for sure.
Just for the benefit of others:
- it was hard for me to change th
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't really know where to post feature ideas, but this seems the only
> viable option.
>
> I was setting up a fallback MX server with Postfix and was struggling with
> preventing backscatter mail. I thought I found a
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Charlie Orford articulated:
> unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit would have solved this
> problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
> backscatter.
The "potential backscatter" is enough to turn me off on the proposal.
Now, if
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:48:44AM -0700, Charlie Orford wrote:
> unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit would have solved
> this problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
> backscatter.
>
> Where is the down side?
That "small penalty" sure is a down side. If I would
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 01:44:26AM +0200, Jeroen wrote:
> On 3 July 2011 01:07, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >> f...@bar.com > forward to foo...@gmail.com
> >
> > Same-envelope forwarding to external sites is also quite likely
> > to become a source of problems for you. When you receive and
> > forward sp
Jerry:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Charlie Orford articulated:
>
> > unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit? would have solved this
> > problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
> > backscatter.
>
> The "potential backscatter" is enough to turn me off on
Jerry:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Charlie Orford articulated:
>
> > unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit? would have solved this
> > problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
> > backscatter.
>
> The "potential backscatter" is enough to turn me off on
On 7/3/2011 3:14 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
> Hello
>
> I would like to force all my real users to use SMTP AUTH
> ( SASL + LDAP ) but we have many internal mailing lists
> running and I wonder if it is possible to add an exception
> for that purpose , I think it would be possible with "mynetwork"
>
