Paul Menzel via Postfix-users:
> Dear Wietse,
>
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
>
> Am 28.03.26 um 16:21 schrieb Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> > Paul Menzel via Postfix-users:
> >> Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I mean the message, the sender of
> >> the force-expired message gets in the "rejection message" which
> >> currently is *message is administratively expired*. Sorry, if my comment
> >> is redundant.
> >
> > Indeed. My preference would be that it is the reason to hold the
> > message. How would 'forced expire' distinguish between "missing
> > SPF" or different reasons?
>
> The postmaster decides, when executing `postsuper -f <id>`. Does that
> make sense?
What is wrong with Postfix recording the reason (missing SPF, etc)
at the time that the message is placed on hold? That would be a
good fit for the existing notification workflow.
I prefer that over creating from scratch an entirely new notification
workflow.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
