[pfx] Re: Amazon SES rejects text/rfc822-headers when header includes multipart content type - Workaround?

2024-01-04 Thread postfix--- via Postfix-users
Just a note to update the thread. Amazon reports that they've now corrected this issue in all of their regions, and sending the test case through I mentioned earlier in the thread now works, at least in our region. Cheers! Dan On 11/20/2023 3:52 PM, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote: On

[pfx] Re: Amazon SES rejects text/rfc822-headers when header includes multipart content type - Workaround?

2023-11-20 Thread postfix--- via Postfix-users
On 11/20/2023 2:07 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:02:15AM -0500, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote: You'd need to apply "body checks" to internally generated mail, which is generally not recommended, and would apply regardless of context, not just

[pfx] Re: Amazon SES rejects text/rfc822-headers when header includes multipart content type - Workaround?

2023-11-20 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:02:15AM -0500, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote: > > You'd need to apply "body checks" to internally generated mail, which is > > generally not recommended, and would apply regardless of context, not > > just to bounced header-only content. > > > > main.cf: > >

[pfx] Re: Amazon SES rejects text/rfc822-headers when header includes multipart content type - Workaround?

2023-11-20 Thread postfix--- via Postfix-users
On 11/16/2023 3:39 PM, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 03:18:13PM -0500, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote: I'm thinking someone has probably already seen this and wondering if anyone has a work around (other than send the bounce somewhere else which may or

[pfx] Re: Amazon SES rejects text/rfc822-headers when header includes multipart content type - Workaround?

2023-11-16 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 03:18:13PM -0500, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote: > I'm thinking someone has probably already seen this and wondering if anyone > has a work around (other than send the bounce somewhere else which may or > may not be possible in my current situation, still