Thank you! I was too stupid to RTFM. Clamd can provide custom reject
messages.
Am Mo., 17. Sep. 2018 um 16:18 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I like the clean and easy milter way and having clamd this way integrated
> > in postfix. But i can not
Hi,
i noticed the following today. Is this part of the standard?
For recipient domain:
MX 5 mx1.recipient.com - does not support TLS and refused delivery with
temp error
MX 10 mx2.recipient.com - does support TLS and took the mail
Sep 18 10:36:29 B245080E75: TLS is required, but was not offered
Stefan Bauer:
> Hi,
>
> i noticed the following today. Is this part of the standard?
There is no standard that requires TLS for MTA-to-MTA deliveries.
> For recipient domain:
>
> MX 5 mx1.recipient.com - does not support TLS and refused delivery with
> temp error
> MX 10 mx2.recipient.com - doe
I was expecting that the mail would bounce as the first MX refuses to talk
TLS and i mapped that to a perm error. But postfix skips the one with
temporary/temp error and delivered to the second that offered TLS.
Am Di., 18. Sep. 2018 um 14:36 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
>
On 18.09.18 14:43, Stefan Bauer wrote:
I was expecting that the mail would bounce as the first MX refuses to talk
TLS and i mapped that to a perm error. But postfix skips the one with
temporary/temp error and delivered to the second that offered TLS.
I think your logic is flawed. the SSL handsh
my point is that i already map this error to a perm one but in this case a
backup mx was avail that was tls aware and was used in a second attempt. i
like the noticed behavior but asked, why it is like that. expected perm
error and bounce like when no backup mx avail.
Am Dienstag, 18. September 20
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 5:58 AM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> I noticed the following today. Is this part of the standard?
You should have asked "is this expected behaviour in Postfix"? And the
answer is "yes".
> For recipient domain:
>
> MX 5 mx1.recipient.com - does not support TLS and refused del
thank you. this is awesome!
Am Dienstag, 18. September 2018 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni :
>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 5:58 AM, Stefan Bauer
wrote:
>>
>> I noticed the following today. Is this part of the standard?
>
> You should have asked "is this expected behaviour in Postfix"? And the
> answer is "yes
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 08:43:16PM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> thank you. this is awesome!
Yes, it is. Credit to Wietse for consistently taking the time to
think Postfix features through, and designing their semantics and
interface with care.
The choice to apply the delivery just filter once p
