<p>For testing, simply create a mailbox with a vanishingly small quota on some destination system, then ... exceed the "warning level"...;-) <br>
Cheers</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">Den 30 nov 2010 16.04, "Peter Ong" <<a href="mailto:peter.ong@hypermediasystems.com">peter.ong@hypermediasystems.com</a>> skrev:<br><br><p><font color="#500050"><br>----- Original Message -----<br>
<br>> From: "Glenn Steen" <<a href="mailto:glenn.steen@gmail.com">glenn.steen@gmail.com</a>><br><br>> And did you verify t...</font></p>Yes, I verified it quite extensively.<br>
<br>
(<a href="http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html" target="_blank">http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html</a>)<br>
The unverified_recipient_reject_code was confusing in this regard when I read it at first. But upon closer examination in Postfix 2.6 there is an unverified_recipient_defer_code which clued me into maybe that "reject" was supposed to be modified. At first, I feared that it was going to unconditionally reply 5xx to anything even for lesser offenses. But now that I see the "defer" version, I'm quite convinced it's okay to change it to 550.<br>
<br>
After the change, I've tested it and it works. However, I am unable to create a test situation where the final destination server would reply in the 4xx or less. But I think it's working now. Thanks Glenn and everyone.<br>
<p><font color="#500050"><br>p<br>-- <br>MailScanner mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br><a href="http://lists.mailscanner.info/mai.">http://lists.mailscanner.info/mai.</a>..</font></p>
</blockquote></p>