Re: mail sorting tool
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:03:17 +1100, Jeremy Lunn writes:
>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> > > Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
>> > > a queue, there?s a script watching the dialin-logs, when it sees that
>> > > there?s a queue for that user, sendmail is started with on-the-fly
>> > > rewritten options for that queue, eg smarthost set to the dynamic IP).
>>
>Which makes me think, if your their provider, why not give them a static
>IP Address?
this is where the salesmen came into play :/
is they have a static IP, we cannot limit them in the number of
recipients (which _I_ do not want, but the salesforce does). this way,
they get _all_ their mail via our queue (and they have to set up each
&every mailaddress with us <ARGH>).
most of our smtp-queuing customers do have a static IP, though. but
they´re also the ones with unlimited queues.
>Surely the bulk of customers wanting this sort of service would be
>businesses who'd need to be connected long enough that giving them a
>static IP address is viable. For the remaining ones, I don't see what's
>wrong with UUCP.
how do you spell uucp with exchange? I don´t know, I don´t want to
know. but chances are that you cannot.
> Surely it can't be enough to even bother messing with
>your MTA's source code
why bother with the source if all you have to do is set up your rules
;-) . our setup is ldap-only since ~ 2 years, so that kind of things
are quite easy to implement.
> and if they are too dumb I'd rather let them use
>pop as long as the envelop headers are added as a X-header (for example
>with Craig Sander's script http://taz.net.au/postfix/vpop/).
we haven´t had the need, but it´d be no problem if a customer asked.
cheers,
&rw
--
/ Ing. Robert Waldner | Network Engineer | T: +43 1 89933 F: x533 \
\ <Waldner@KPNQwest.at> | KPNQwest/AT | Diefenbachg. 35, A-1150 /
Reply to: