Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 01:55:16AM +0100, Gerald Galster via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> >
> > > Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 12:55:53AM +0100, Gerald Galster via
> > > Postfix-users wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm relating to the modified log message in general:
> > >
> > > You failed to read Wietse's original carefully. The only proposed
> > > change is to log **failure to create** a bounce message queue file with
> > > the original queue id as the correct context. This does not change the
> > > logging of normal (successful) bounce processing.
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying that.
> >
> > So for successful deliveries nothing changes:
> >
> > > postfix/bounce[]: 4dRQzN6pXBzVHYR: sender non-delivery notification:
> > > new-queue-id
> >
> > And the error case would look like this:
> >
> > > postfix/bounce[]: 4dRQzN6pXBzVHYR: sender non-delivery notification:
> > > message content rejected
> >
> > How shall a parser best distinguish a queue id from a possibly variable
> > error message?
>
> The message could be subtly different, perhaps one of:
>
> postfix/bounce[]: <queue-id>: sender non-delivery notification message
> content rejected
> postfix/bounce[]: <queue-id>: sender non-delivery message content rejected
> postfix/bounce[]: <queue-id>: rejected: sender non-delivery notification
> message
> ...
I'm looking at
postfix/bounce[]: <queue-id>: sender notification failed to <sender>:
message content rejected
Which will be different enough.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
