Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 1999)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My!
From: Carsten Hoeger <choeger @ suse . de>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:36:49 +0200
To: Wietse Venema <wietse @ porcupine . org>
Cc: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>, list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM, postfix-users @ cloud9 . net
In-reply-to: <19990830173858 . A4FF74579B @ spike . porcupine . org>; from Wietse Venema on Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 01:38:58PM -0400
References: <Pine . LNX . 3 . 96 . 990830110024 . 28754A-100000 @ scifi . squawk . com> <19990830173858 . A4FF74579B @ spike . porcupine . org>

On Mon, Aug 30, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Nick Simicich:
> > Problem:  Postfix, by default, uses a special mechanism to quickly catch
> > and thwart mail loops.  It places a "delivered-to" header into the mail
> > when it delivers it.  If mail is pushed back into postfix, and it is about
> > to deliver it to a place it has already delivered it to, it bounces it
> > instead.  This is very effective.  It is so effective that it catches even
> > mail loops where the Received lines are stripped.  It also catches
> > attempts to approve messages, because the mail will be inserted into the
> > mail queue with a target destination that is already named in a
> > Delivered-To:.  This is the problem.
> 
> Yes, delivered-to is ugly.
> 
> Thanks for the resend patch. This is better than forcing moderators
> everywhere to patch their mailing list approval scripts.
> 
> Would it help if the patch was more specific so that it only drops
> /^Delivered-To: .*majordomo@/ and leaves other headers intact?
> 
> There's one other solution, suggested long ago on this list, and
> that is to count Delivered-To: headers and to allow mail to loop
> exactly once.  However, that would affect all mail, and not just
> mail that being approved.

IMHO, the Delivered-To: mechanism has to be deactivateable.
I removed those lines from source, because we are not able
to use postfix anymore if not.

We are using very complex procmail-filters for our support
and other nonsingle-user accounts.

E.g. mail reaches support, it'll be bounced to some user
and if this user is on vacation, it'll be bounced back and postfix
does not like this... :-(


-- 
mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Carsten Hoeger  - SuSE Professional Services -

SuSE GmbH,   Schanzaeckerstr. 10,      90443 Nuernberg, Germany
Tel: +49-911-7405356 Mo-Fr 09-17.00,       Fax: +49-911-3206727
http://www.suse.de/bsupport/index.html  Email: bsupport @
 suse .
 de



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My!
From: wietse @ porcupine . org (Wietse Venema)
Next: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My!
From: wietse @ porcupine . org (Wietse Venema)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My!
From: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Next: Re: Majordomo and Postfix and Approvals, Oh, My!
From: wietse @ porcupine . org (Wietse Venema)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com