On 9 Oct, David W. Tamkin wrote:
| Don Hammond wrote:
| > Is it possible that postfix is smarter
| > than sendmail about the way it interfaces with procmail as LDA? Could
| > it be waiting around to find out that "delivery" was actually a forward
| > and that it's going to create a loop?
| If you mean, "Does Postfix, like qmail, refuse to deliver to an address
| that already appears in a Delivered-To: header, while sendmail doesn't
| care?" the answer is yes.
I've had some contact off-list with Jason, who has indicated he'll
summarize for the list once he completely understands it. I suggested
to him, even though there didn't seem to be much interest in the
thread, there's always the possibility that a lurker or two has
something to gain.
It was in fact the procmail recipe that needed fixing, and not postfix,
dns, hosts files or any of the other conspiracy theories I concocted.
I hate it when I spend a lot of time guessing all kinds of contorted
problems, and it turns out to be the the simplest of things that didn't
even occur to me until the last minute. Well, it did occur to me and I
mentioned it as a deficiency, but not as the cause of the problem.
Adding loop detection apparently fixed the problem, though we'll wait
for Jason to clarify that after he's had a chance to work it out some
Whether it was the Delivered-To: header or not, I don't know, but that
sure seems like a sensible feature. Whatever it was, postfix did an
admirable job of mnimizing the effect. It's not fun deleting a couple
thousand messages when you create a loop. I know. :-(
Email address in From: header is valid * but only for a couple of days *
This is my reluctant response to spammers' unrelenting address harvesting
procmail mailing list