Paul Cocker wrote:
But isn't recipient maps purely checking the destination address to see
if it's valid? If so, why does it matter when you check the validity so
long as you do before it reaches its final destination for that domain
and is bounced?
if your secondary accepts a message to an in
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Duane Hill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Paul Cocker wrote:
But isn't recipient maps purely checking the destination address to see
if it's valid? If so, why does it matter when you check the validity so
long as you do before it reaches its final destination for that domain
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Paul Cocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But isn't recipient maps purely checking the destination address to see
> if it's valid? If so, why does it matter when you check the validity so
> long as you do before it reaches its final destination for that domain
> and
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Paul Cocker wrote:
But isn't recipient maps purely checking the destination address to see
if it's valid? If so, why does it matter when you check the validity so
long as you do before it reaches its final destination for that domain
and is bounced?
Let's just assume your s
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mouss
> Sent: 08 October 2008 14:03
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: [SPAM?] Re: My first config - unable to telnet to
> port 25, virtual.db missing
> Importance: Low
>
> Paul Cocker wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cocker
> > Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2008 6:00 PM
> > To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> > Subject: RE: [SPAM?] Re: My first config - unable to telnet
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cocker
> Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2008 6:00 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: RE: [SPAM?] Re: My first config - unable to telnet
> to port 25, virtual.db mis
The primary passes to an internal mail server, but performs recipient
validation before doing so. This is why I don't believe it's worth doing
on the secondary because it means genuine recipients will be checked
with the internal server twice (should they be received by the
secondary, not primary M
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 10:24:38AM +0100, Paul Cocker wrote:
>
> So at this point I'll see to setup a method for queering AD, and I see the
> HOWTO section has a couple of articles which cover this. My only concern
> would be the risks in opening up communications to AD from the DMZ.
Simply creat
Thanks for the clarifications. I've compiled virtual and progress is being made.
As we receive around 100 000 mails a day, I assume that doesn't fall into the
category of "low volume", so I don't think reject_unverified_recipient would be
suitable, nor is maintaining a list of valid e-mail addre
10 matches
Mail list logo
