On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:19:59PM -0400, Alex wrote:
> > The only plausible solution on your end is to not queue mail for this
> > domain, but rather proxy it through to the destination, with the
> > response to "." coming from the final downstream systems. This may be
> > possible with:
> >
> >
Alex via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
>
> > > We're only doing basic spam protection for them,
> >
> > What is the nature of the "basic spam protection"? Can it be done
> > pre-queue?
> >
>
> Yes, most likely, I would think. It's a basic spamassassin setup with a few
> rules looking for specific patt
Hi,
> > We're only doing basic spam protection for them,
>
> What is the nature of the "basic spam protection"? Can it be done
> pre-queue?
>
Yes, most likely, I would think. It's a basic spamassassin setup with a few
rules looking for specific patterns, as well as some RBL network checks.
The
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:24:30AM -0400, Alex via Postfix-users wrote:
> We're only doing basic spam protection for them,
What is the nature of the "basic spam protection"? Can it be done
pre-queue?
The only plausible solution on your end is to not queue mail for this
domain, but rather proxy
Hi,
I have a postfix-3.7.3 system on fedora37 and we're routing mail for a
business using an Ironport device at their border. Instead of accepting all
messages from us as their MX, there are some messages that it has
determined are spam or otherwise undeliverable, which are resulting in them
bounci
