Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-29 Thread Gustav Meirinho
If it can not be done at the moment, all right (I found a similar request in 2006 - message 209338). My real problem is this: Many customers use mail groups (virtual_alias_maps). Each destination account can create their own rules for releasing and blocking, which is consulted by the

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-29 Thread Gustav Meirinho
Guys, I'm still accepting ideas. :D Gustav Meirinho escreveu: If it can not be done at the moment, all right (I found a similar request in 2006 - message 209338). My real problem is this: Many customers use mail groups (virtual_alias_maps). Each destination account can

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:19:18PM -0200, Gustav Meirinho wrote: How can I integrate the XForward command with PDP, to have more complete information of an envelope, regardless of the instance used? WTF PDP? Even if we knew what PDP was, this question is way too concise. Please explain your

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Mark Martinec
WTF PDP? Policy delegation protocol, I suppose. Mark

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Mark Martinec: WTF PDP? Policy delegation protocol, I suppose. Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no more information than what has already been posted). Wietse

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Gustav Meirinho
LOL! Sorry. PDP = Postfix Delegation Protocol. If postfix has XForward support, why not to send xforward information to delegation protocol? Only a doubt, not a real problem. Thanks again and sorry about the mess. Gustav. Udo Rader escreveu: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:55:07PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: Mark Martinec: WTF PDP? Policy delegation protocol, I suppose. Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no more information than what has already been posted). Then perhaps the question is about expanding

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Gustav Meirinho
Exactly the opposite. This would be the desired response in "PDP": request=smtpd_access_policy protocol_state=RCPT protocol_name=SMTP helo_name=some.domain.tld queue_id=8045F2AB23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] recipient_count=0 client_address=1.2.3.4 client_name=another.domain.tld

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Victor Duchovni: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:55:07PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: Mark Martinec: WTF PDP? Policy delegation protocol, I suppose. Confirmed (I referred him to the mailing list, and have no more information than what has already been posted). Then perhaps the

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Reinaldo de Carvalho
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Victor Duchovni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:47:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: This thread suggests that each xforward attribute also needs to be made available via Milter macros (in smtpd and cleanup), and via the policy delegation

Re: XFORWARD Vs PDP

2008-10-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Victor Duchovni: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:47:08PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: This thread suggests that each xforward attribute also needs to be made available via Milter macros (in smtpd and cleanup), and via the policy delegation protocol. There seems to be some demand for this,