Wietse, Noel,
thanks for the prompt answers. I've been already looking at postscreen
and postfwd, but wandered if there something in the postfix
*_restrictions as well. We're using postfix 2.7, so postscreen is out.
We're looking into implementing policyd anyway, so that's probably a
good place.
So, since we need some features of policyd as well (rate limiting, for
instance), and we're already using amavis, do we chain postfwd before
policyd or vice-versa?
Thanks,
Miha.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> Policyd-weight is deprecated and doesn't even have async DNS looku
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> postfwd does rate limiting, and many other features. Maybe you can
> consolidate everything into postfwd.
We'll take a deeper look at postfwd for that.
> Additionally, rate limiting is typically done on outgoing mail,
True. But there are som
Hello!
Will below be OK for holding messages for recipients?
Thanks, Miha
On Feb 11, 2013 7:56 PM, "Miha Valencic" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just want to double check if I am planning this correctly. We're migrating
> users from one system to another, and want to HOLD inco
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> put it under smtpd_sender_restrictions so you don't have to muck
> around with your existing smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Noel,
just want to make sure: postfix 2.7 evaluates
smtpd_sender_restrictions *after* RCPT TO? Couldn't find which ver
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> The HOLD action affects all recipients; you can be more specific by
> using the retry service. See the following thread:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/197989
Thanks Sahil! I'll consider it. It also makes sense, though
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> HOLD acts at the message level, not the recipient level.
> If one recipient of a multi-recipient message is put on HOLD, all
> recipients of that message will be affected.
I see. I believe the HOLD is better suited to our scenario as a
temporar
