Thomas Spycher:
> So my questions are:
>
> 1. Can anyone explain me how the original smtp binary takes
> commands from the queue?
That is an internal interface. Programs that depend on this are NOT
SUPPORTED and WILL BREAK as Postfix evolves over time.
To catch delivery status, submit mail wit
Hi Wiets
That sounds like exactly the solution i was looking for just at an unexpected
location :)
I'll give it a try!
I could send the status notification mails to the mta back and filter them in
my milter script and taataaa i have the status of the delivered mail.
Sounds perfect, at least in
Thomas Spycher:
> Hi Wiets
>
> That sounds like exactly the solution i was looking for just at
> an unexpected location :) I'll give it a try!
>
> I could send the status notification mails to the mta back and
> filter them in my milter script and taataaa i have the status of
> the delivered mail
Is it possible to force postfix to create DSN for all categories
(success,delay,fail) for every new mail?
Tom
On Jul 9, 2012, at 16:03 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> Thomas Spycher:
>> Hi Wiets
>>
>> That sounds like exactly the solution i was looking for just at
>> an unexpected location :) I'll gi
Thomas Spycher:
> Is it possible to force postfix to create DSN for all categories
> (success,delay,fail) for every new mail?
If you send multi-recipient messages, then you may receive one
notification for the success-category recipients of that message,
and one notification for the delayed-catego
This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go through
the contortions to set up SPF?
Thanks,
Curtis
Curtis Maurand:
> This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go through
> the contortions to set up SPF?
Yes, if this is a recipient requirement.
Wietse
Hi,
if Postfix receives an mail with multiple recipients (eg. to, cc and bcc). This
mail gets processes as one single mail by postfix. How could it get
accomplished to change the content of the mail for each recipient in an
different way?
Currently i've done this in an content filter. The Conte
Den 2012-07-09 17:20, Curtis Maurand skrev:
This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go
through the contortions to set up SPF?
have you ever got bounces back from remote ip with your domain as
envelope sender ?
much better question that answers your question
seen in d
Den 2012-07-09 17:44, Wietse Venema skrev:
Curtis Maurand:
This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go
through
the contortions to set up SPF?
Yes, if this is a recipient requirement.
why ?
Hi,
I would like postfix to not log to the default syslog-daemon to
have better control over where each specific postfix instance logs to. I
am running multiple instances on a server.
Postfix only knows about logging to syslog which is unfortunate,
although I have read that someday postfix will c
On 9 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Curtis Maurand wrote:
This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go
through
the contortions to set up SPF?
On the sending side, the simple answer is "YES!"
There is a more complex and nuanced answer. There's a significant amount
of misunderstand
Am 09.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Bill Cole:
> On 9 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>> This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go through
>> the contortions to set up SPF?
>
> On the sending side, the simple answer is "YES!"
>
> There is a more complex and nuance
Am 09.07.2012 18:30, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
> Den 2012-07-09 17:20, Curtis Maurand skrev:
>> This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go
>> through the contortions to set up SPF?
>
> have you ever got bounces back from remote ip with your domain as
> envelope sender ?
>
>
Leo Baltus:
> Hi,
>
> I would like postfix to not log to the default syslog-daemon to
> have better control over where each specific postfix instance logs to. I
> am running multiple instances on a server.
Postfix has syslog_facility to split different syslog streams.
Otherwise propose a new sys
Am 09.07.2012 19:43, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> strict spf has its problems with mail lists by breaking forward
> so this may rise your users support, but its good to have
> it in testing mode for income check at big mailers, also it helps little
> on backscatter
mailinglists are not the probl
Am 09.07.2012 19:52, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Leo Baltus:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like postfix to not log to the default syslog-daemon to
>> have better control over where each specific postfix instance logs to. I
>> am running multiple instances on a server.
>
> Postfix has syslog_facility to spli
On 9 Jul 2012, at 13:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 19:00, schrieb Bill Cole:
On 9 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Curtis Maurand wrote:
This has probably been asked in the past, but is it worth it to go
through
the contortions to set up SPF?
On the sending side, the simple answer is "YES!"
T
Am 09.07.2012 20:25, schrieb Bill Cole:
> On 9 Jul 2012, at 13:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> If you expect to be able to safely use a "-all" tail on a record for a
>>> domain
>>> that is used on legit mail, you stand a strong chance of disappointment
>>
>> why?
>
> (1) There are many perfectly i
Am 09.07.2012 20:03, schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 09.07.2012 19:43, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
>> strict spf has its problems with mail lists by breaking forward
>> so this may rise your users support, but its good to have
>> it in testing mode for income check at big mailers, also it helps li
On 7/9/2012 2:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 09.07.2012 20:25, schrieb Bill Cole:
>> On 9 Jul 2012, at 13:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
If you expect to be able to safely use a "-all" tail on a record for a
domain
that is used on legit mail, you stand a strong chance of disappointmen
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:16:19 -0500
Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/8/2012 4:18 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
> >
> >> Jul 8 22:09:28 mail postfix/local[1999]: 144761410:
> >> to=, relay=local, delay=0.97,
> >> delays=0.54/0.03/0/0.4, dsn=5.1.1, status=bou
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Christopher J. Ruwe:
> > Jul 8 22:09:28 mail postfix/local[1999]: 144761410:
> > to=, relay=local, delay=0.97,
> > delays=0.54/0.03/0/0.4, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user:
> > "test")
> >
> > That is were I was before. How
On 07/09/2012 05:47 PM, Thomas Spycher wrote:
Hi,
if Postfix receives an mail with multiple recipients (eg. to, cc and bcc). This
mail gets processes as one single mail by postfix.
Only on reception; when it is queued, the message is duplicated as many
times as necessary to address all next-
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:45:34AM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> I would probably opt to make it a fully controllable process by
> first queueing and re-injecting it into a second listener or postfix
> instance by utilizing ${second-smtpd}_recipient_limit = 1
Right idea, wrong implementation. A
25 matches
Mail list logo
