Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > To make per-recipient end-of-data replies useful with Postfix, PRDR
> > would need to be supported by at least one third-party content
> > inspection mechanism (such as Amavisd-new or Milter), because I see
> >
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 03:23:11PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Wietse wrote:
> > To make per-recipient end-of-data replies useful with Postfix, PRDR
> > would need to be supported by at least one third-party content
> > inspection mechanism (such as Amavisd-new or Milter), because I see
> > no o
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> To make per-recipient end-of-data replies useful with Postfix, PRDR
> would need to be supported by at least one third-party content
> inspection mechanism (such as Amavisd-new or Milter), because I see
> no obvious user interface fo
Wietse wrote:
> To make per-recipient end-of-data replies useful with Postfix, PRDR
> would need to be supported by at least one third-party content
> inspection mechanism (such as Amavisd-new or Milter), because I see
> no obvious user interface for PRDR with Postfix header/body_checks.
>
> - SMT
Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * Claus Assmann :
> > Per RCPT filtering is a feature that is often asked by ISPs who
> > offer anti-spam/virus for their customers: some pay for additional
> > filtering.
>
> In Germany you either reject globally in session, and stick with
> the law, or you reject post-queu
* Claus Assmann :
> Per RCPT filtering is a feature that is often asked by ISPs who
> offer anti-spam/virus for their customers: some pay for additional
> filtering.
In Germany you either reject globally in session, and stick with the law, or
you reject post-queue per recipient.
Adding functional
[Wietse]
I just stubled across this thread:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/exim/users/90005
We could take a bold step and do it in two "main stream" MTAs,
damn the torpedoes.
Let's not call it a bold step, let's call it a bottom-up approach ;-). I
can't speak for Oracle, but I wou
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:30:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I just stubled across this thread:
> > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/exim/users/90005
> > We could take a bold step and do it in two "main stream" MTAs,
> > damn the torp
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:30:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I just stubled across this thread:
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/exim/users/90005
>
> We could take a bold step and do it in two "main stream" MTAs,
> damn the torpedoes.
Is it worth the effort? Will enough SMTP cl
Claus Assmann:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > It's a shame http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hall-prdr-00.txt or
> > > something like it never went anywhere.
>
> > It is surprising, considering that there is experience with
> > per-recipient data replies in LMTP, and that it is
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > It's a shame http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hall-prdr-00.txt or
> > something like it never went anywhere.
> It is surprising, considering that there is experience with
> per-recipient data replies in LMTP, and that it is straightforward
> to impleme
11 matches
Mail list logo
