Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Ian Duggan (ianianduggan.net)
Date: Thu Nov 19 2009 - 11:25:14 CST
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Wietse Venema <wietseporcupine.org> wrote:
> In smtpd_recipient_restrictions you can have an access(5) map
> that uses PREPEND.
> /([^]+)$/ PREPEND X-Vmta: $1
> which can be picked up by header_checks, because thuse happen later.
> And that is as far as I am willing to reach out at this time.
I will think on this more, but that just supplies the domain without
the transport number needed to select the IP, and we definitely don't
want to randomize it or anything like that. Thank you for your help.
>> My preference is to figure out how to get postfix to do what
>> transport(5) seems to indicate it should, however.
> I think this use case is so peripheral to legitimacy that it's not
> a priority for me to find out what things will break when this were
> to be changed.
> I am suspicious when people try to use Postfix to implement
> IP-based reputation tricks.
That is understandable. I can only say that this is work-for-hire and
the organization tracks their email reputation very closely. The setup
has SPF and DKIM in place, and they monitor and respond to complaints
assiduously and appropriately. The point of this work is avoid
inadvertently damaging a good reputation through a programming mistake
or similar when new email is introduced. Untested emails would use one
of the newer IPs, and emails that don't get complaints use the old
one. The end goal is not to piss of the users. On the good/bad scale,
I think this is neutral at best.
The work would have gone forward using multiple postfix instances with
or without my or your help. I assured them that postfix was
wonderfully flexible and was surprised when I had trouble getting it
to do this simple thing.
Again, thank you for you help.