On Tuesday 17 Feb 2015 at 20:05, ricky gutierrez wrote:
> 2015-02-17 13:44 GMT-06:00 Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>:
> > where the ccount lives don't matter
> >
> > the only resticiton is that "header_checks" BCC in Postfix 3.0 only works
> > for "header_checks" and *not* "smtp_header_checks", hence it need to be
> > defined on the downstream server instead on the MX
>
> Reindl let me understand, the postfix could leave a copy BCC locally
> on the gateway, or send a copy to another MX server defined in my
> bind?
BCCs will be delivered wherever the address points to. If your gateway has
mail accounts (unlikely?) then they can be delivered there; otherwise they'll
go to whichever is the MX for the BCC address.
> > where the target address itself is located don't matter, postfix just
> > generates a BCC and sends it to that local or remote address
> >
> > but be sure you consider the legal implications!
>
> if this is'll have to talk to my boss.
Basically, you must ensure that nobody ever sees the emails - they must only
be used for automated processing, unless there is a very good and justified
reason for looking at some of them to investigate problems etc (and even in
this case the person is only allowed to look at the part of the email needed
to investigate - so if they need to see the body of a false-positive ham-
identified-as-spam, they shouldn't look at the headers. If they need to see
the headers, they almost certainly shouldn't see the recipient (since that's
very unlikely ever to be involved in classifying an email as ham or spam)).
Hope that helps,
Antony.
--
#define SIX 1+5
#define NINE 8+1
int main() {
printf("%d\n", SIX * NINE);
}
- thanks to ECB for bringing this to my attention
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
