| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
> If this needs to configurable, then someone will have to come up > with an acceptable design and implementation, because I don't have > enough time. > > Personally, I prefer that the mail receiving application returns an > appropriate status under all conditions; if it can't stay in control, > then I think it is safer not to keep inviting disaster repeatedly. > > BTW, I did not invent the idea of mapping invalid exit codes to > hard errors; like many MTAs, Postfix does the same with SMTP. > For a pipe(8) transport running partly tested code, a "-o soft_bounce=yes" in master.cf is likely a good enough solution. -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:majordomo?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2004-2008 readlist.com