Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit :
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers
and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table.
It would be maximally convenient if the subject text
How exactly does one disconnect from stdin? I mean other than by
calling exit() ?
Exiting is sufficient.
The SMTPD_POLICY_README file should be edited in a way so as to
make that clear. The current wording is quite entirely perplexing.
Disconnect is quite obviously the wrong word to use
Ronald F. Guilmette:
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers
and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table.
It would be maximally convenient if the subject text could be
interpolated in
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:57PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
That delay, in and of itself is not really a problem for me. What
_is_ a bit of a problem is the fact that smtpd_delay_reject doesn't
merely cause anything listed under smtpd_sender_restrictions to be
delayed until such time as
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
problem for me. And I guess that executing my policy server as part of
smtpd_data_restrictions will also allow me to turn back on the
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
The SMTPD_POLICY_README file says:
In case of trouble the policy server must not send a reply. Instead the
server
must log a warning and disconnect. Postfix will retry the request at some
later
time.
Ummm...
I
In message 3jd99m4nwtzj...@spike.porcupine.org,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers
and/or from specific entries within an access(5)
In message 32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th
alesgroup.com, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
emmanuel.fu...@external.thalesgroup.com wrote:
Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit :
Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an
In message 20141009141819.go13...@mournblade.imrryr.org,
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
problem for me. And I guess that executing
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message
32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th
alesgroup.com, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
emmanuel.fu...@external.thalesgroup.com wrote:
Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette
In message 20141009152227.gq13...@mournblade.imrryr.org,
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
As I understand it, a Postfix policy server is supposed to be reading
incoming requests from stdin.
No, it is
Am 09.10.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
I wonder how many Postfix policy servers have been written to be
invoked other than via spawn(8). I have trouble imagining that any
have been, since just allowing them to be invoked by spawn(8)...
which automagically handles hooking up stdin
Ronald F. Guilmette:
Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
handle 100 requests. (I guess that this is one way of allowing for
badly written policy servers that have, for example, memork leaks
or
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:07:21AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Please do correct me if I'm wrong... I may be misunderstanding...
but these additional possibilities you are describing would be
available _only_ if the policy server is invoked by something
other than spawn(8), correct?
In message 20141009163728.gt13...@mournblade.imrryr.org,
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message 32139_1412843719_543648C7_32139_3580_1_543648C6.9050308@external
.th
alesgroup.com,
In message 3jdjvm2k00zj...@spike.porcupine.org,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
handle 100 requests. (I guess that this is
Ronald F. Guilmette:
In message 3jdjvm2k00zj...@spike.porcupine.org,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
handle 100
In message 20141009172354.gu13...@mournblade.imrryr.org,
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
Spawn launches a new {policy} process for each new {SMTP} connection.
Thank you! I most certainly did not grasp that until just this moment.
A policy server connection never outlives
In message 3jdlhr1bzjzj...@spike.porcupine.org, you wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
OK, I'm reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the statement in
question, which appears in the SMTPD_POLICY_README, and I'm sorry to
say that I still find it almost imponderably ambiguous.
Please clarify
Ronald F. Guilmette:
In message 3jdlhr1bzjzj...@spike.porcupine.org, you wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
OK, I'm reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the statement in
question, which appears in the SMTPD_POLICY_README, and I'm sorry to
say that I still find it almost imponderably
In message 3jdmll1j7pzj...@spike.porcupine.org,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
I'm asking you to explain your documentation, and specifically why
you have a different understanding of the word use that the vast
See
Ronald F. Guilmette:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
Wietse
I just implemented two more compatibility breaks with
postfix-2.12-20141009. These are expected to be the last ones
before the Postfix 2.12 stable release (or whatever it will be
called).
- relay_domains default is changed from $mydestination to (empty).
- mynetworks_style default is changed
I seem to have mislaid the note file in which I kept the build options that I
built postfix with, and I am planning on recompiling a new version of postfix
soon (It was supposed to be last month).
What can I look at to figure out what the build options were for the currently
installed version
On 09 Oct 2014, at 13:50 , Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote:
No one sensible would dispute your skill as a software developer,
but I'll put my own understanding of the English language up against
your's,
Funniest thing all day. Hurray for Skitt’s Law.
--
'I thought we could
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:46:24AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
Spawn launches a new {policy} process for each new {SMTP} connection.
Thank you! I most certainly did not grasp that until just this moment.
No, I deliberately did not
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/
precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table:
domain.tld
In message 20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org,
Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
man page resulted in matching _multiple_
On 10/09/2014 08:25 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In any event, regardless of how this key sentence is construed, it
self-evidently leaves open a rather obvious quetion: What happens,
exactly, when the $max_use limit is exceeded? The document makes
no effort at all to specify, leaving the
29 matches
Mail list logo
