Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> > >That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
> > >folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
> > Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
> > occur a
chandan via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-09-05 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> >
> > There is no hard requirement to fold at 78 characters, the limit is 998
> > bytes. And Message-Id SHOULD not be folded, even if over 78 bytes
> > long.
> >
> > I think it is fine for Postfix to tr
On 2024-09-05 12:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
There is no hard requirement to fold at 78 characters, the limit is 998
bytes. And Message-Id SHOULD not be folded, even if over 78 bytes
long.
I think it is fine for Postfix to treat folded Message-IDs as
malformed.
Interestin
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> >That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
> >folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
> Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
> occur after the header label according to the non
>That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
>folding whitespace *before* (not in the middle of) the Message-ID.
Sorry, could have been more clear about that. The folding can only
occur after the header label according to the non obsolete RFCs.
>There are no clear cut rul
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Thomas Mörbauer via Postfix-users
wrote:
> For example
> Message-ID:
>
> would not be written into the In-Reply-To.
> So a simple crlf with space.
That's rather different than what you appeared to say. Here there's
folding whitespace *before* (not in t
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Thomas Mörbauer via Postfix-users
wrote:
> When sending a mail with a folded message-id header ... then the
> message-id is ignored with the log message: "ignoring malformed
> Message-ID".
There really SHOULD NOT be any folding whitespace in the middle
ores message id when threaded bounces are enabled
if RFC-5322 header folding is used
Thomas M?rbauer via Postfix-users:
> When sending a mail with a folded message-id header according to [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.2%29 |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/d
tconf.5.html#enable_threaded_bounces |
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_threaded_bounces ] is enabled,
> then the message-id is ignored with the log message:
> "ignoring malformed Message-ID".
>
> It seems that the issue is located in the bounce_notify_util.c "
/postconf.5.html#enable_threaded_bounces ] is enabled,
then the message-id is ignored with the log message:
"ignoring malformed Message-ID".
It seems that the issue is located in the bounce_notify_util.c "Extract
Message-ID for threaded bounces" else if block.
Especially it se
Nico Hoffmann via Postfix-users:
>Jun 23 22:50:02 schubert postfix/qmgr[26673]: 60970354BC3:
>from=, size=471, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
This message was sent from x...@lewonzelewonze.de, therefore
a non-delivery notification will be sent to that address. This is
defined in the SMTP protocol,
pe address (I do no sender address rewriting for
outgoing email).
But if there are bounces because the email is rejected by the relay,
(a typo in the domain of the recipient address, for example...) things
get weird. See the log snipplet below.
Apparently, postfix creates a non delivery notificati
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:57:22AM +0100, Daniel Marquez-Klaka via
Postfix-users wrote:
> Why my setup looks like this? mail-server1 servs a couple of other mail
> domains, not only the one destined for the mailing lists. An access list
> here would affect all domains, right?
Only if the access
Dnia 27.03.2024 o godz. 11:57:22 Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users pisze:
> True as well that mailman can restrict senders to list members only
> but I have a couple of open lists that should be addressable by all
> participating domains/company’s, no one else.
If you have a list of domains f
Hiya,
thanks for your reply’s. My solution was as easy as adding the line
“/^([<]+[>])$/ OK" to my access map.
Changing smtpd_null_access_lookup_key didn’t seem to have any effect.
Why my setup looks like this? mail-server1 servs a couple of other mail
domains, not only the one destined for t
Dnia 25.03.2024 o godz. 16:11:47 Daniel Marquez-Klaka via Postfix-users pisze:
> 2 postfix mail server, one, mail-server1, is connected to the
> internet, the second,
> calling it list-server1, which serves a few mailing lists, is only
> reachable thru
> mail-server1.
>
> On mail-server1 a transpo
the edge relay
(server1), not the downstream list server.
> ... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to
> prevent loops, get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will
> ever notice if there are dead emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce
>
everything
---- 8<
All fine so far, but...
... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to
prevent loops,
get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will ever notice if
there are dead
emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce handling (I am using mailman3
on l
fine so far, but...
... bounces, as the are send with empty FROM (<>), as I understand to
prevent loops,
get rejected to. This is a problem because nobody will ever notice if
there are dead
emails in a list. Also, automatic bounce handling (I am using mailman3
on list-server1)
will never do anythin
On 2024-02-27 at 16:39:54 UTC-0500 (Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:39:54 -0800
(PST))
lists--- via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org
website. Is that a deprecated parameter?
The names of Postfix map files are up to you. Their usag
Wietse:
> Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with
> check_CLIENT_access.
lists--- via Postfix-users:
> Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks?
What do you want to not block: the sender email domain? Then
use check_sender_access (note that is check_sender_
Well do I put the domain in sender_access or sender_checks?
It looks like sender_access with an OK since it acts on the FROK field.
https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
I have a sender_checks file but I don't see that on the postfix.org website. Is
that a deprecated parameter?
Feb 27, 2024
Your mistake: you are trying to match a SENDER ADDRESS with
check_CLIENT_access.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
I still have that problem with the sender that used a spammy microsoft
server that gets rejected by IP for using spamcop. I put the domain in
the client_checks file but the sender gets bounced.
postconf mail_version
mail_version = 3.8.1
compatibility_level = 2
The client_checks line was added
Amateur mail-admin here (I know, don't do that) . I have a redirect to
gmail set up for two users, and at times this happens:
1) The relayhost ("smarthost") I use, my internet provider, will accept
the mail for gmail.
2) Gmail rejects the mail as spam.
3) Relayhost bounces
450) and not bounced
> back to the sender. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I can
> make sure that I don't bounce incoming mail, I should be OK.
You are not supposed to accept and deliver mail for a remote recipient
domain (whether it exists or not) from unauthenticated clien
ks to my
> liking, with spam-filters, hand-off to mailman, dkim-signing and
> whatnot. One problem is that mis-typed outgoing addresses (host part)
> from my local, authenticated users end up deferred (450) and not bounced
> back to the sender. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I
. I am a bit wary of enabling bounces, but if I can
make sure that I don't bounce incoming mail, I should be OK.
Long story short, If in a specific postfix instance I am SURE I'm only
handling mail submitted by authenticated users, I should be OK to change
unknown_address_reject_code t
George:
> Hi,
>
> I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and gets
> back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and causing
> additional load.
>
> Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any type of bounce
> th
On 15.09.2017 17:00, "George" wrote:
> I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and
> gets back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and
> causing additional load.
>
> Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any t
George skrev den 2017-09-15 17:00:
I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and
gets back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and
causing additional load.
if i know my book right, you send mail to a host that accept and bounce
where thay should have
Hi,
I have a mail server running postfix that sends a lot of emails and gets
back a lot of bounces. These bounces a filling up my server and causing
additional load.
Is there any way on a postfix level to reject/not accept any type of bounce
that gets sent to the mail server?
Please let me know.
tting bounce information
polling via POP3 ONLY one location
So my need is to get the bounces only via server1.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Somewhat like a DSN relay?
both of them
- the application server is capable of getting bounce information polling
via POP3 ONLY one location
So my need is to get the bounces only via server1.
Is there a way to accomplish this?
Somewhat like a DSN relay?
I am open for suggestions...
I am already thinking about migrating the
On 29 Jun 2016, at 11:45, Chip wrote:
I will read up on it. Thank you for the link.
Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer.
True, unless you accept Michael Wise's generous functional definition.
I'm on the fence there, as I've held job titles calling me an engineer
but
> On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote:
>
>>> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote:
>>>
> I will read up on it. Thank you for the link.
>
> Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer.
In that you are mistaken.
Almost everyone who subscribes to th
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Miles Fidelman
> wrote:
>
> AND NOW I'M CURIOUS... What kinds of backgrounds and roles do people here
> have? Is managing a postfix installation part of your official duties, or
> something that you've fallen into?
CS degree from before the 'Net, missed the 'N
On 6/29/16 3:13 PM, Michael J Wise wrote:
On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote:
I will read up on it. Thank you for the link.
Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer.
In that you are mistaken.
Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer.
Please
> On 6/29/16 2:30 PM, Michael J Wise wrote:
>
>>> I will read up on it. Thank you for the link.
>>>
>>> Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer.
>> In that you are mistaken.
>>
>> Almost everyone who subscribes to this mailing-list is an engineer.
>> Please re-read that line.
>
ode it into the headers, but it is best described
as a, "Virtual Header".
Some other headers inserted by arbitrary third parties are not documented
in *ANY* RFC anywhere, and almost everyone completely ignores them.
Such is the case with, "bounces-to".
It's not a standard.
*ANY* RFC anywhere, and almost everyone completely ignores them.
Such is the case with, "bounces-to".
It's not a standard.
Almost everything will ignore it.
People who expect it to always work should be prepared for disappointment.
Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
" So this is how Liberty dies ... http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
" To Thunderous Applause.
I will read up on it. Thank you for the link.
Not everyone, I think, who visits this list is an engineer.
So it would have been easier to understand if the response had been
along the lines of:
"envelope-from" instead of just FROM since there are a number of Froms
in the source code.
Some
On 29/06/16 17:02, Chip wrote:
> If Return-path is added by receiving MTA, as you say, below, and that it
> contains the MAIL FROM, then why do I see the following in source code
> of received message in which return-path does not match From?
Could I respectfully suggest that you read up on the di
om,
witch is data and and not directly related to MAIL FROM/envelope from.
On 06/29/2016 10:50 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
Chip wrote:
My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path"
Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA (usually on final
delivery) that contains
: "Sears"
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path:
From: lucky
On 06/29/2016 10:50 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
Chip wrote:
My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path"
Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA (u
Chip wrote:
> My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path"
Return-path is a header added by the receiving MTA (usually on final
delivery) that contains the envelope sender (MAIL FROM) used by the
sending system.
> as in the following
> snippet of campaign e
On 6/28/16 2:01 PM, Chip wrote:
> My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path"
This is not a subtle difference. The Return-Path header gets added (or
replaced, in the case it is already there) by the receiving MTA with the
MAIL FROM address. It is placed there only
My mistake NOT "bounces-to" rather "return-path" as in the following
snippet of campaign emails from Home Depot, Martha Stewart and Sears:
From - Mon Jun 20 08:43:03 2016
X-Account-Key: account15
X-UIDL: UID1962-1324328699
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 000
> On 28 Jun 2016, at 20:26, Jeffs Chips wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that ALL email campaign services allow and indeed suggest
> users to identity a specific sole purpose email account in which to receive
> bounces to eliminate spam and which almost all email campaigners
I don't dispute any of what happens just saying that a company out there
that advertises as their mission to eliminate spam and whom, they
advertise, has access to 30 million MX records is sending bounces to the
reply to or envelope sender whereas I'm just saying that ALL email campaig
> On 28 Jun 2016, at 19:28, Chip wrote:
>
> Okay maybe it's not in RFC's but I would it would be at least a
> recommendation that bounces can be routed back to bounces-to rather than
> reply-to. After all, why have the field at all if it's not used properly
Mail-server refusals (as in NOQUEUE) are generated before the email body
is received - and will also be sent to the envelope sender.
On 28/06/16 18:51, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote:
>> Meaning there are no standards for the way
>> emailers should res
Bounces go to the envelope sender, the address used in the SMTP MAIL
FROM command.
Not reply-to, nor bounces-to, nor any other address listed in a
header.
To control where bounces are returned, set the envelope sender.
-- Noel Jones
On 6/28/2016 1:28 PM, Chip wrote:
> In standard em
In standard email campaign software like phplist, constantcontact,
mailchimp all of those popular email campaign software many of which use
Exim and are used literally by millions of email campaigners, the
bounces-to is where bounces are expected to be returned so that they can
be effectively
On 6/28/2016 12:12 PM, Chip wrote:
> Meaning there are no standards for the way
> emailers should respond to bounces?
bounces always go to the envelope sender, regardless of any
unrelated junk in the headers.
Chip:
> Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way
> emailers should respond to bounces?
According to RFC 5321, the definition of the Internet email protocol,
an undeliverable email message is returned to its MAIL FROM address,
and that return message is sent with th
Okay I guess it does. Meaning there are no standards for the way
emailers should respond to bounces?
On 06/28/2016 12:54 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chip:
I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone
on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies.
If a
Chip:
> I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone
> on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies.
>
> If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email
> security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rathe
I know this question is not specifically germane to Postfix but everyone
on this list has extensive experience with bouncing policies.
If a receiver of campaign emails (that promotes itself as an email
security service) sends bounces to "reply-to" rather than "bounces-to"
Hi,
I've recently implemented dmarc on my system. I've implemented both
rua and ruf reports. I'm trying to understand why my postfix queue is
being inundated with undeliverable messages such as these:
E45A5182C7E 2700 Wed Dec 23 11:11:52 postmas...@cheatcodes.com
(connect to mulish.yachtspec
I have a small Postfix installation with virtual domains that runs well,
however, a user is complaining of being hit with flood of rejects from
spam sent out from elsewhere as though from him, the rejects are coming
back to him
the user in question has been, by his former request, exempted from s
Wietse Venema:
> Jose Borges Ferreira:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Jose Borges Ferreira:
> > >> This is the scenario.
> > >> Box 1 : just receive email from "outside" - inbound flow.
> > >> Box 2 : used to sent email to the "outside" - oubound flow.
> > >
> > > I
Jose Borges Ferreira:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Jose Borges Ferreira:
> >> This is the scenario.
> >> Box 1 : just receive email from "outside" - inbound flow.
> >> Box 2 : used to sent email to the "outside" - oubound flow.
> >
> > Inbound MTA: primary MX for your
elayhost would "catch"
more than intended.
That's why I asked about a way just to apply the relayhost behavior to
server generated messages (bounces).
> Outbound MTA: if mail can't be delivered, use standard MX logic to
> deliver NDRs to the sender's MX host(s).
>
That's was already covered, because email loops back through the InboundMTA
Thanks.
José Borges Ferreira
Jose Borges Ferreira:
> This is the scenario.
> Box 1 : just receive email from "outside" - inbound flow.
> Box 2 : used to sent email to the "outside" - oubound flow.
Inbound MTA: primary MX for your domain(s). If mail can't be
delivered, use Postfix's relayhost feature to deliver outbound mail
v
Am 03.12.2014 um 14:32 schrieb Jose Borges Ferreira:
2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a
way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages
and couldn't find a way to achieve that.
There is no RFC that requires this. I am highly-suspi
;> is not RFC valid.
>
> YOU create a non-compliant configuration when YOU disable
> append_at_myorigin for local submission.
Thanks for pointing out where the problem is.
I have to maintain a quite complex setup and this was already set.
Next time will also test on a Postfix instance
able
append_at_myorigin for local submission.
> 2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a
> way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages
> and couldn't find a way to achieve that.
There is no RFC that requires this. I am highly-suspici
-address
2) I want to forward bounces to a specific host. I was looking for a
way to specify a relayhost or a transport for that class of messages
and couldn't find a way to achieve that.
I cannot use sender_dependent_default_transport_maps, because I
only want to apply to messages generate
noted that Postfix 2.12 adds mydomain and myhostname to be
used in the bounce template and changing the template to
MAILER-DAEMON@$myhostname would also simplify.
Or having something like $bounce_from_address (default to
MAILER-DAEMON@$myhostname ) it would be very nice.
2) I want to forward b
rwarded or
> aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bounces or
> Postmaster notifications. Filtering internally-generated bounces could result
> in loss of mail when a filter rejects or defers a message (the resulting
> double-bounce message would almost certai
I have added this text at the end of "Non-SMTPD Milter applications":
Wietse
Signing internally-generated bounce messages
Postfix normally does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded or
aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as
Am 28.11.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Wietse Venema:
don't get me wrong but "Postfix currently does not apply content filters to
mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a
problem when y
> don't get me wrong but "Postfix currently does not apply content filters to
> mail that is forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
> internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a
> problem when you want to apply a signing Milte
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:30 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>> I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote:
>>>
>>> "Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is
>>> forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that
context and quoted the relevant parts.
I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote:
"Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is
forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be
ext and quoted the relevant
> parts.
>
> I'm just pointing that the Milter documentation*, quote:
>
> "Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is
> forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
> internally such as bounces or
ng that the Milter documentation*, quote:
"Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is
forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
internally such as bounces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a
problem when you want to apply a signing Milter to s
Jose Borges Ferreira:
> What's wrong ? The documentation or the
> internal_mail_filter_classes/non_smtpd_milters implementation that
> allows applying a signing Milter to bounces ?
You appear to believe that there is a difference between Postfix
documentation and Postfix implementa
end the link to Postfix documentation that support that claim,
in particular
"see point 4 on http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html#limitations";
that states:
Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is
forwarded or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated
inte
On 11/25/2014 1:34 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit
>>
>> You can set "bounce_size_limit = 0" to return the message headers
>> only.
>
> The minimum allowed value is "1". There
ed value is "1". Therefore, to bounce headers only
>
> bounce_size_limit = 1
As a general rule, where Postfix accepts a limit of zero, it means
"disable the no limit".
Unlimited bounces are not a good idea. That's why the minimum is 1.
Wietse
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit
>
> You can set "bounce_size_limit = 0" to return the message headers
> only.
The minimum allowed value is "1". Therefore, to bounce headers only
bounce_size_limit =
Am 25.11.2014 um 17:51 schrieb John Oliver:
> I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from
> bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful
> article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I
> didn'
On 11/25/2014 10:51 AM, John Oliver wrote:
> I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from
> bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful
> article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I
> didn't see
I'm looking for a way to remove anything from the original email from
bounces. Yes, I know this is a goofy use case :-) I found a useful
article about customizing bounce messages which I'll look into, but I
didn't see anything in it about making sure the bounce contains nothing
On 11/19/2014 11:55 PM, Mohammed Ejaz wrote:
> hello,
>
>
>
> Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would
> be highly appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> *1. **I have several entries as below for our one of the
> customer whose relaying his email through our mail ser
Am 20.11.2014 um 06:55 schrieb Mohammed Ejaz:
Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would be
highly appreciated.
*1.**I have several entries as below for our one of the customer whose
relaying his email through our mail servers*
Nov 20 07:41:05 mersal postfix/smtpd[3
hello,
Please experiencing two issues with customer. any explanation would be
highly appreciated.
1. I have several entries as below for our one of the customer whose
relaying his email through our mail servers
Nov 20 07:41:05 mersal postfix/smtpd[30971]: warning: 212.
o use HTML messages to send
"beautiful" bounces messages (internally) but continue to send standard
text format externally.
Text msgs is beautiful, no ?
I already configured my bounce_template_file, but it only allows me to
do it as text.
You can show a link in bounce to bugzilla on
ossible for there to be fewer people
>> who read bounces.
>>
>> Customized LOCAL bounce messages would be nifty. I don't want HTML
>> ones but customizing the messages for local users would be nice. Some
>> extensibility to the variables available might be nice
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:49:15 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 04:51 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The harder you try, the fewer people will read your bounce message.
>
> Honestly, I do not think it is possible for there to be fewer people
> who read bounces.
>
>
On 17 Oct 2014, at 04:51 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> The harder you try, the fewer people will read your bounce message.
Honestly, I do not think it is possible for there to be fewer people who read
bounces.
Customized LOCAL bounce messages would be nifty. I don't want HTML ones but
cus
Andre Rodier:
> Hi,
>
> I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider
> them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them.
>
> I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send
> "beautiful" b
Am 17.10.2014 um 07:49 schrieb Andre Rodier:
I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider
them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them.
I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send
"beautiful" bounces
Hi,
I have a few users who don't understand bounced messages, and consider
them as an error from our system. I won't even try to educate them.
I would like to know if there is a way to use HTML messages to send
"beautiful" bounces messages (internally) but continue to
On tor 3 jul 2014 13:10:04, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> Wietse Venema:
>>> Patrik B?t:
I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender.
*Here is the log when it fails:*
Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388:
from=, size=1
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Patrik B?t:
> > > I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender.
> > >
> > > *Here is the log when it fails:*
> > > Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388:
> > > from=, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> > > Jul 2 13:0
Wietse Venema:
> Patrik B?t:
> > I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender.
> >
> > *Here is the log when it fails:*
> > Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388:
> > from=, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> > Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/smtp[839
Patrik B?t:
> I'm having problem with a bounce that was never send to the sender.
>
> *Here is the log when it fails:*
> Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/qmgr[5316]: 575C227A388:
> from=, size=125355, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> Jul 2 13:03:05 smtp9 postfix-out/smtp[8391]: 575C227A388:
> to=, relay
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
