Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: always_bcc

Expand Messages
  • Jumping Mouse
    Thanks Victor ... The traffic comes from the same server as the other emails come from, so I think that will not work.
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Victor

      > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:43:06 +0000
      > From: postfix-users@...
      > To: postfix-users@...
      > Subject: Re: always_bcc
      >
      > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 02:42:23PM -0400, Jumping Mouse wrote:
      >
      > > I have set up always_bcc = journal@... for an email
      > > archiving account.
      > > How can bypass always_bcc for certain senders?
      > >
      > > For example I do not want to always_bcc any email that comes from
      > > audit1@... and or audit2@...
      >
      > Now all your users know that to avoid archiving they should just
      > send email from those addresses. (With NOTIFY=NEVER so as not to
      > be caught out by bounces if possible). :-)
      >
      > More seriously, don't exempt senders, exempt messaging flows between
      > specific servers that carry traffic that is not subject to archiving.

      The traffic comes from the same server as the other emails come from,  so I think that will not work. 


      >
      > --
      > Viktor.
    • Jumping Mouse
      Wietse, What do you mean by: (I warned you that it is VERY rudimentary. There is no DUNNO special result value that forces a lookup failure). What does
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Wietse, 

        What do you mean by:   "(I warned you that it is VERY rudimentary. There is no "DUNNO"
        special result value that forces a lookup failure)."  
        What does this look like in a real world scenario?  What are the potential drawbacks? 
      • Wietse Venema
        ... I described a solution with configuration file examples. It does what it does: exclude two sender addresses with a nested if/endif construct. In an ideal
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Jumping Mouse:
          > Wietse,
          > What do you mean by: "(I warned you that it is VERY rudimentary.
          > There is no "DUNNO"special result value that forces a lookup
          > failure)." What does this look like in a real world scenario?
          > What are the potential drawbacks?

          I described a solution with configuration file examples. It does
          what it does: exclude two sender addresses with a nested if/endif
          construct.

          In an ideal world, this solution would be nicer. You would specify
          three rules: one rule for each excluded sender address, and one
          wild-card rule for everyone else. But the word is not ideal, and
          therefore I will not decribe the nicer solution in detail.

          Wietse
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.