> On 23 May 2018, at 11:43, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-us...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Doug Hardie <bc...@lafn.org> wrote:
>>
>> It is a non-existent address and is fine. It's just surprising that one of
>> the non-existent addresses gets a different log message. The only thing I
>> can think of is that the originator has a non-printing character somewhere
>> in the address.
>
> No, the reason is that the address existed in the past, and
> so is cached as verified. That cached value will expire at
> some point, and then it will become unverified. Not clear
> why you use recipient verification...
I would think that cache would be cleared with a restart. Vmail_alias is dated
28 Apr. That's almost 2 months ago. Recipient verification seemed like a good
idea from reading the documentation. I take it from your comment that it
duplicates one of the other checks?
incoming_smtpd_restrictions =
check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10040,
reject_invalid_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
permit_mynetworks,
check_recipient_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/tempfail,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_unverified_recipient
permit
