We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each other
for internal mail accoss our VPN. The appliance will do smtp level
recipient verification p
Jeff wrote:
We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each other
for internal mail accoss our VPN. The appliance will do smtp level
recipient
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
>> filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
>> firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with each
Jeff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff wrote:
We have an email gateway appliance at the network edge for spam/virus
filtering. It relays mail to multiple postfix+imap servers behind the
firewall. The back-end servers communicate directly with eac
Jeff:
> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It generates bounce
> notifications, which in the end will create back-scatter. The bounce
> messag
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
>> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
>> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It generates bounce
Jeff:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
> >> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases when relayed through our
> >> gateway, but it does not do so at the SMTP level. It
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Jeff:
>> >> It took me a while before I could test this. The recommended solution
>> >> succeeds at blocking the specified aliases whe
Jeff:
> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the FRONT_END host.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access h
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff:
>> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
>> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
>
> Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED] o
Jeff:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >> I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
> >> whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
> >
> > Reject
Jeff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff:
I want the back-end to tell the front-end gateway 550 for
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I want it to tell my other internal MTAs OK,
whilst not breaking regular recipient verification.
Reject [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
