* Wietse Venema <postfix-users@postfix.org>: > > a customer asked me to help them customize Postfix replies, so clients > > (better: users) can get a hint why their message is being rejected. > > > > The idea is to refer to an URL in the reply where (generic) verbose > > explanations on the reject reason can be found. Something along these lines: > > > > 5xx REJECT: See http://www.example.com/plaintext_reject_code > > > > I can customize replies for access(5) maps and for RBL maps. > > > > What I miss is a way to append text to the following rejects that currently > > only allow to set a code: > > > > access_map_reject_code > > defer_code > > invalid_hostname_reject_code > > multi_recipient_bounce_reject_code > > non_fqdn_reject_code > > plaintext_reject_code > > reject_code > > relay_domains_reject_code > > unknown_address_reject_code > > unknown_client_reject_code > > unknown_hostname_reject_code > > unknown_local_recipient_reject_code > > unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code > > unknown_virtual_alias_reject_code > > unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code > > unverified_recipient_reject_code > > unverified_sender_reject_code > > > > Did I miss something? If not, do you believe its worth to be added? (Of > > course > > not now while 2.6 is on its way and while other work ... and ...). > > If it isn't documented, then you cannot use it.
I knew you were going to say that... > I don't think it is a good idea to tweak each individual reject > message. It makes perhaps more sense to append the same "for support > please (call xxx|see http://mumble/)" text to all reject messages. > Of couse no-one ever reads such text, so it is mainly CYA stuff. I agree on the end users, but think it would be helpful to postmasters (at least it was to me). AOL uses something like this when they block you. As a postmaster this was helpful to me figuring out what had gone wrong on a customers machine. > This text woud have to be spliced into the output stream in function > smtpd_chat_reply(). Couple hours work for implementing testing, > documenting, making sure it handles 421 and 521 replies, etc., and > making sure that nothing calls smtpd_chat_reply() multiple times > for one reply, and considering what happens with Simon's multiple > replies patch. Yeah, I thought so (concering the time and efforts it would take). Sounds like low priority to me at the moment. Thanks, p...@rick -- The Book of Postfix <http://www.postfix-book.com> saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): <http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/>
