OT postfix recipient verification
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 23:43:26 GMT 2010
2010/1/6 Jason Ede <J.Ede at birchenallhowden.co.uk>:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
>> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Steve Freegard
>> Sent: 06 January 2010 18:58
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: Re: OT postfix recipient verification
>> On 06/01/10 18:10, Jason Ede wrote:
>> > Recipient verification has been working fine for years, but we've
>> > had a problem crop up. Someone is sending status/error emails from
>> > webserver back to their office. Some of the emails primary 'to'
>> > is to someone who has left, but the other recipients are still valid.
>> > Recipient verification still rejects the email. Is there a way round
>> > this without having to run another postfix instance and split the
>> > up into emails?
>> That doesn't sound right at all. How are you doing the verification?
>> via the verify daemon?
> Verification is via the receipt verification within postfix. I've a btree database file as per the postfix docs.
>> Recipient verification should only affect the invalid recipient and
>> shouldn't affect the other valid recipients unless the senders server
>> so poorly implemented and gives up sending the entire message as soon
>> one of the recipients is rejected...
> I've not had any of the bounces yet, but am trying to get hold of them. I've had to whitelist their server from greylisting as it doesn't seem to handle it very well. All I know of the server itself is that it uses a Microsoft SMTP service.
>> Maybe you could provide an example?
> When I get an actual bounce I'll know a lot more.
Unless M$ managed to botch even that, this sounds like a bit of FUD
from your users:-). It's as Steve says. the recipient verification
simply can't (or at least SHOULDN'T) have the effect described, at
least not for a true MTA. The good thing is that ANY problem is
squarely in THEIR court. Make sure to mention that any problems
incurred is due to their systems misbehavior, and that anything you do
to fix it is a pure courtesy;-).
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner