> On Oct 26, 2016, at 11:53 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> It makes far more sense to implement a truly intentional and permanent block
> based absolutely on the client IP by simply not accepting the connection,
> either in the lower layers of the
On 26 Oct 2016, at 11:45, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:13:37PM +0200, Julian Kippels wrote:
Oct 15 23:16:21 balder postfix/smtp[12174]: 5FDBC8002F90: host
ppmx1.its.rochester.edu[128.151.57.241] refused to talk to me: 554
ppmx1.its.rochester.edu ESMTP Blocked - see
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:13:37PM +0200, Julian Kippels wrote:
> Oct 15 23:16:21 balder postfix/smtp[12174]: 5FDBC8002F90: host
> ppmx1.its.rochester.edu[128.151.57.241] refused to talk to me: 554
> ppmx1.its.rochester.edu ESMTP Blocked - see
>
Julian Kippels:
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering why my postfix was continuing to try to deliver a
> mail to another server after getting a 554 response the first time.
> Shouldn't the delivery stop right then and there and the sender be
> notified? Instead postfix tried for several days to deliver
Am Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:39:58 +
schrieb Matthias Andree :
> Am 26. Oktober 2016 12:33:48 MESZ, schrieb Julian Kippels
> :
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was just wondering why my postfix was continuing to try to deliver
> >a mail to another server after getting a 554
Am 26. Oktober 2016 12:33:48 MESZ, schrieb Julian Kippels :
>Hi,
>
>I was just wondering why my postfix was continuing to try to deliver a
>mail to another server after getting a 554 response the first time.
>Shouldn't the delivery stop right then and there and the sender be
Hi,
I was just wondering why my postfix was continuing to try to deliver a
mail to another server after getting a 554 response the first time.
Shouldn't the delivery stop right then and there and the sender be
notified? Instead postfix tried for several days to deliver the message
before it