On Montag, 18. Dezember 2006 06:02 Aaron Stone wrote:
Why not throw the address as received from the MTA into dbmail, and
the rewriting is done there? It makes sense to do it there:
So DBMail does the rewrite before delivery.
Yes, but the MTA doesn't have to care about anymore, which makes
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 09:19 +0100, Michael Monnerie wrote:
Perhaps a solution is to have a 'dbmail-checkaddr' that returns 0 or
1 depending on whether or not the given address can be delivered at
all? Bad news is that this would have horrible scalability issues
unless it were a daemon.
On Montag, 18. Dezember 2006 10:59 Aaron Stone wrote:
Each time a dbmail-foo binary is executed, a new connection to the
database is created.
I see and understand.
Why they didn't just use VRFY I do not know -- then it could have hit
the same LMTP server it would next hit to do the actual
On Samstag, 16. Dezember 2006 11:27 Paul J Stevens wrote:
Michael, why not use the MTA to do this? Postfix is very good at this
stuff, and I'm sure other mta's have similar capabilities.
Yes I did now, but I consider this a hack. It's the mailserver that
should know about it's recipients, not
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Samstag, 16. Dezember 2006 11:27 Paul J Stevens wrote:
Michael, why not use the MTA to do this? Postfix is very good at this
stuff, and I'm sure other mta's have similar capabilities.
Yes I did now, but I consider this a hack. It's the mailserver that
should know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The MTA should only have to request if a user and/or domain exists,
and
send it to the mailserver. The rewriting should be in there, as is the
information about real users etc.
I'm not sure how much spam you get, but I think it is better to
Marc Dirix wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The MTA should only have to request if a user and/or domain exists, and
send it to the mailserver. The rewriting should be in there, as is the
information about real users etc.
I'm not sure how much spam you get, but I think
On Sonntag, 17. Dezember 2006 18:36 Paul J Stevens wrote:
Well, some of us will disagree there. The recipient MTA should also
know about recipients.
I got misunderstood: Of course the MTA must know which recipients exist.
I showed in an earlier e-mail my SQL query to the extended dbmail with
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 00:06 +0100, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Sonntag, 17. Dezember 2006 18:36 Paul J Stevens wrote:
Well, some of us will disagree there. The recipient MTA should also
know about recipients.
I got misunderstood: Of course the MTA must know which recipients exist.
I
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 22:07 +, Aaron Stone wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Bernard Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Aaron Stone wrote:
All mail for @example1.com gets forwarded tot @example2.com.
Does this work!? I've been thinking through the code all morning, and I
just don't
On Samstag, 16. Dezember 2006 09:36 Aaron Stone wrote:
The code in question leads to bug #477 that I just filed and fixed!
Oh good.
You will *crash* DBMail 2.2.2 if your deliver_to field is in the
form 'username@' or '@domain'. With the fix in place, messages that
deliver to such an
Michael Monnerie wrote:
create all aliases of all alias domains? So when I have
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need aliases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and also
[EMAIL
Paul J Stevens wrote:
Michael, why not use the MTA to do this? Postfix is very good at this
stuff, and I'm sure other mta's have similar capabilities.
belay that. I noticed you're already on that track.
--
Paul Stevens
Lars Kneschke wrote:
Bernard Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
There seems to be two types of catchall aliases: domains (@domain) and
local parts (user@).
Is there anyway to map something like:
@example1.com - @example2.com
such that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Marc Dirix [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You can use a forward.
dmail-users -x @example1.com -t @example2.com
All mail for @example1.com gets forwarded tot @example2.com.
Does this work!? I've been thinking through the code all morning, and I
just
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Bernard Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Aaron Stone wrote:
All mail for @example1.com gets forwarded tot @example2.com.
Does this work!? I've been thinking through the code all morning, and I
just don't think that this can possibly work as expected -- you're all
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006, Bernard Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What I get is that the lmtp process connects to the lmtpd
daemon. Something happens (haven't bothered to get a trace debug yet)
and the connection is dropped and postfix marks it as delivery
temporarily suspended to
17 matches
Mail list logo
