[Dovecot] Sieve info
simon.buongiorno at gmail.com
Wed Jul 24 11:07:07 EEST 2013
On 24 Jul 2013 09:44, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> Am 24.07.2013 09:21, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> > Reindl, keep this kind of crap off the list. It benefits nobody here
> > and simply wastes resources. Either send it off list, or better yet,
> > don't sent it at all. You got yourself booted from Postfix-users for
> > this type of behavior
> no - i got removed because *of you* and your message below
> which resulted in undersatndable anger
Really Reindl, I find myself unable to support you in any of the salient
points you make because of your attitude and anger management issues. If
the calm, rational email below resulted in understandable anger then you
have issues best not dealt with in a public forum.
> you behaved the same way telling others they "have less to zero knowledge"
> with exactly this words and Wietse as well as Viktor did point you that
> behavior is not that of a saint in context of provocate me and doing the
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: Reject email
> Datum: Thu, 09 May 2013 09:44:36 -0500
> Von: Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com>
> Antwort an: stan at hardwarefreak.com
> Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the
> list. However you made some invalid points that need to be corrected
> for those who may browse the archives in the future.
> On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming
> > mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record
> > and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail
> When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback
> to A? While RFC may require it, and some used it in the 70s and 80s, no
> receivers rely on fallback to A in 2013. Anyone versed sufficiently in
> SMTP to know of the existence of fallback to A isn't going to rely on
> it. They'll have proper MX records.
> > another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed
> > hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention
> > of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means
> > a) no MX record for the domain
> > b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname
> > reject b) would be fine
> Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time.
> > reject a) would be stupid
> If generic and not selective then yes, but not because of fallback to A.
> The real problem here is legitimate send-only domains, such as some
> mailing lists, bulk mail campaigns, emergency alert and other
> notification systems, etc.
More information about the dovecot