Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Noel Jones put forth on 10/2/2009 12:00 PM:
Was the mail addressed to postmaster? The postmaster address gets a
free ride in some versions of postfix.
No, it wasn't addressed to Postmaster, but I wish you'd have said this
before I made a fool of myself, because
mouss put forth on 10/3/2009 8:32 AM:
instead of relying on To, use recipient delimiter to route the tapped
mail to say stan+s...@..., then have TB use the Delivered-To header that
is added by postfix. of course, you can do this at delivery time (sieve
if dovecot, maildrop rules if courier,
Hi all,
I just had a viagra spam from gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu
(gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu [79.122.36.230] sneak past both of my pcre
checks which should have killed it. Until today they've been working
flawlessly, or so I believe, and I have ample log entries showing
they've been working.
On 10/2/2009 10:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hi all,
I just had a viagra spam from gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu
(gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu [79.122.36.230] sneak past both of my pcre
checks which should have killed it. Until today they've been working
flawlessly, or so I believe, and I have
Noel Jones put forth on 10/2/2009 10:54 AM:
On 10/2/2009 10:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hi all,
I just had a viagra spam from gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu
(gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu [79.122.36.230] sneak past both of my pcre
checks which should have killed it. Until today they've been
Noel Jones put forth on 10/2/2009 12:00 PM:
Was the mail addressed to postmaster? The postmaster address gets a
free ride in some versions of postfix.
No, it wasn't addressed to Postmaster, but I wish you'd have said this
before I made a fool of myself, because your suggestion here jolted my
