Am 29.09.2014 um 15:53 schrieb Noel Jones: > On 9/29/2014 7:40 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote: >> Am 29.09.2014 um 13:45 schrieb Noel Jones: >>> On 9/29/2014 6:18 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>>> Ralf Hildebrandt: >>>>> * Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@postfix.org>: >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Currently I'm using smtp_fallback_relay but I don't want Address >>>>>>> verification probes to take that particular path. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can I disable smtp_fallback_relay for the address verification >>>>>>> probes? >>>>>> >>>>>> Specify a different verification transport (clones of "smtp" and/or >>>>>> "relay") and override smtp_fallback_relay in master.cf. >>>>> >>>>> Thought so, thanks. I was just wondering why every parameter had a >>>>> address_verify_* equivalent but this one. >>>> >>>> None of the SMTP client parameters (*) has an address_verify_* equivalent. >>>> >>>> The address_verify_* equivalents exist for parameters that determine >>>> the selection of mssage delivery transports and relayhosts. >>>> >>>> Wietse >>>> >>> >>> Is smtp_fallback_relay even used with a verification probe? I would >>> expect the probe to fail before it tries the fallback. >> >> hm... >> >> http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html >> >> By default, Postfix sends address verification probe messages via the >> same route as regular mail, > > Yes, but it also says: > > Probe messages are like normal mail, except that they are never > delivered, deferred or bounced > - and - > Postfix assumes that an address is undeliverable when the nearest > MTA for the address rejects the probe, regardless of the reason for > rejection > > > It doesn't seem generally useful to probe a fallback relay, so I'm > looking for clarification.
Guess its a defintion question, fallback relay = same route as regular mail that, might be wanted eleswhere, but youre right its a litte bit "unclear" in the docs , perhaps of historical reasons, dont know if it might be usefull to have some exeption parameter for it, perhaps not ,cause it might configured with transport where such parameter exists, so fixing some "unclearness" here may introduce some unclearness elsewhere I guess its better "gurus" may answer this question in more detail. > > > > -- Noel Jones > Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer -- [*] sys4 AG http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64 Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263 Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
