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

Re: attachments on bounce messages generated by postfix

Expand Messages
  • Charles Marcus
    ... Unsupported according to the postfix site... ... So he should have asked on the redhat list... -- Best regards, Charles
    Message 1 of 11 , May 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
      > Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
      >> >On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
      >>> >>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
      >> >Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
      > stoneold yes, but unsupported not really

      Unsupported according to the postfix site...

      > [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
      > postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
      >
      > rpm -q --changelog postfix
      > * Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6

      So he should have asked on the redhat list...

      --

      Best regards,

      Charles
    • Reindl Harald
      ... says who? ... you genius realized that the question was answered before your post? so why you needed to post 12 hours after the solution? ... Betreff: Re:
      Message 2 of 11 , May 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
        > On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
        >> Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
        >>> >On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
        >>>> >>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
        >>> >Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
        >> stoneold yes, but unsupported not really
        >
        > Unsupported according to the postfix site...

        says who?

        >> [root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
        >> postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
        >>
        >> rpm -q --changelog postfix
        >> * Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav Škarvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6
        >
        > So he should have asked on the redhat list...

        you genius realized that the question was answered before your post?
        so why you needed to post 12 hours after the solution?

        -------- Original-Nachricht --------
        Betreff: Re: attachments on bounce messages generated by postfix
        Datum: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:13:45 +1200
        Von: Ben WIlliams <benwilliams@...>
        An: postfix-users@...

        Thanks that fixed it.

        On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@... <mailto:postfix-users@...>>
        wrote:

        On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:31:43AM +1200, Ben WIlliams wrote:

        > Please can someone help me understand how to configure what is attached to
        > bounce messages.
        >
        > The version is postfix 2.3.3. Originally it only attached the message
        > headers of the failed email with Content-Description: Undelivered Message
        > Headers
        >
        > Now it attaches the entire failed email with Content-Description:
        > Undelivered Message
        >
        > I would like to revert to the previous behaviour where only the headers are
        > attached to the bounce.

        This depends on the message size and the bounce size limit.

        http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#bounce_size_limit

        If you set

        bounce_size_limit = 1

        bounces will only include headers (no rfc822 message fits in a
        single byte). Postfix does not permit setting the limit to zero or less.
      • Viktor Dukhovni
        ... Let s not engage in sophistry. More to the point even if Redhat continue to fix some bugs in Postfix 2.3, other issues are resolved in later releases
        Message 3 of 11 , May 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:16:28PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:

          > On 2013-05-02 9:15 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
          > >Am 02.05.2013 14:08, schrieb Charles Marcus:
          > >>>On 2013-05-01 6:31 PM, Ben WIlliams<benwilliams@...> wrote:
          > >>>>>The version is postfix 2.3.3.
          > >>>Really? 7 yrs old, unsupported since the last patch (2.3.19) in 2009...
          > >stoneold yes, but unsupported not really
          >
          > Unsupported according to the postfix site...
          >
          > >[root@vmware-recovery:~]$ rpm -qa | grep postfix
          > >postfix-2.3.3-6.el5
          > >
          > >rpm -q --changelog postfix
          > >* Tue Jul 03 2012 Jaroslav ?karvada<jskarvad@...> - 2:2.3.3-6
          >
          > So he should have asked on the redhat list...

          Let's not engage in sophistry. More to the point even if Redhat
          continue to fix some bugs in Postfix 2.3, other issues are resolved
          in later releases through structural improvements that are difficult
          to backport. MTA administrators should deploy Postfix releases
          that are still supported upstream (http://www.postfix.org/download.html).

          --
          Viktor.
        • Charles Marcus
          ... Wietse? ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html Scroll down, genius. The no longer supported stable releases start with 2.6.
          Message 4 of 11 , May 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
            > Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
            >> Unsupported according to the postfix site..

            > says who?

            Wietse?

            ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html

            Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start
            with 2.6.
          • Reindl Harald
            ... tht s all true and fine but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with a one-liner to
            Message 5 of 11 , May 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 02.05.2013 21:30, schrieb Charles Marcus:
              > On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
              >> Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
              >>> Unsupported according to the postfix site..
              >
              >> says who?
              >
              > Wietse?
              >
              > ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html
              > Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start with 2.6

              tht's all true and fine

              but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after
              one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with
              a one-liner to tell the world what is supported or not?
            • Viktor Dukhovni
              ... Guys please take your fight outside, thanks. Offenders will be removed from the list. -- Viktor.
              Message 6 of 11 , May 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

                > Am 02.05.2013 21:30, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                > > On 2013-05-02 3:24 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...> wrote:
                > >> Am 02.05.2013 21:16, schrieb Charles Marcus:
                > >>> Unsupported according to the postfix site..
                > >
                > >> says who?
                > >
                > > Wietse?
                > >
                > > ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html
                > > Scroll down, genius. The 'no longer supported stable releases' start with 2.6
                >
                > tht's all true and fine
                >
                > but who are you creeping out of your whole 12 hours after
                > one of the postfix maintainers had a simple solution with
                > a one-liner to tell the world what is supported or not?

                Guys please take your fight outside, thanks. Offenders will be
                removed from the list.

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