On 8/27/23 20:50, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
I am told that Comcast have raised the limits somewhat, and it should no
longer be necessary to set the recipient limit to 1. I expect you
should now be able to get away with something more reasonable, like 10
or worst-case 5, unless you
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 02:33:49PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I hope that Comcast will relax their limits to allow at least 2 (ideally
> closer to 5 or 10) recipients per message so long as the sending system
> does not have a "known bad" reputation.
I am told that Comcast
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:12:03AM -0700, Bill Sommerfeld via Postfix-users
wrote:
> On 8/27/23 00:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Would it be sufficient to never send more than 1 recipient per
> > mesage, thus never trigger their temporary "block all mail" strategy,
> > and avoid
Thanks for your prompt responses.
On 8/27/23 00:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Would it be sufficient to never send more than 1 recipient per
mesage, thus never trigger their temporary "block all mail" strategy,
and avoid the need for the kludges described here?
That's unclear. I'
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 03:13:43AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld via Postfix-users:
> > About three years ago there was a thread on postfix-users ("Comcast 421
> > throttling multiple recipients") discussing a low-traffic site having
> > difficulties sending to
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> Bill Sommerfeld via Postfix-users:
> > About three years ago there was a thread on postfix-users ("Comcast 421
> > throttling multiple recipients") discussing a low-traffic site having
> > difficulties sending to multiple recipients at comcast in a single smtp
Bill Sommerfeld via Postfix-users:
> About three years ago there was a thread on postfix-users ("Comcast 421
> throttling multiple recipients") discussing a low-traffic site having
> difficulties sending to multiple recipients at comcast in a single smtp
> session. The thread starts here:
>
>
