Mail delivery failed : returning message to sender

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Mail delivery failed : returning message to sender

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software at Junk Email Filter.

The message from "Wietse Venema [Masked]" <> is being returned by server on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:22:06 -0700

A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients.

NOTE: And this is important - Junk Email Filter is a front end spam filtering service. We accept email for our customers, filter it, and pass the good email on. Sometimes when we forward email as good the server we forward to rejects it. Generally if you are getting this message it is because the server we forwarded to  * NOT JUNK EMAIL FILTER * has rejected the message.

If you see below the phrase "error from remote mail server" then it is the server who we are forwarding to, NOT US who is rejecting the email. Read the reason carefully and see if you can correct the cause of the rejection.

The following address(es) failed:

  [hidden email]
    Unrouteable address

This email is forwarded from a MASKED EMAIL you created using Blur.  (

Want to shop safely and privately online? Go Premium:
-------------------------by Abine-------------------------

Raimar Sandner:

> On Dienstag, 20. Juni 2017 22:33:34 CEST Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Raimar Sandner:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > there seems to be a regression after upgrading from postfix 3.1.4 to 3.2.2
> > > on arch linux. I'm using virtual aliases with
> > >  ...
> > > postfix 3.1 will map  [hidden email] to [hidden email]. This
> > > is working perfectly fine: When I receive a mail on
> > > [hidden email], postfix 3.1 logs
> > >  ...
> > > This setup stopped working with postfix 3.2 with the exact same
> > > configuration. The extension is not propagated anymore, postfix 3.2 logs
> > > ...
> > > How can I restore the behaviour of postfix 3.1? Your help is greatly
> > > appreciated! I'm glad to provide more information in case I forgot
> > > something relevant.
> > That will require a bugfix. After many years, the address mapping
> > code needed to be cleaned up, and I thought that all the tests would
> > have caught any incompatibilities, but apparently not.
> >
> > Wietse
> Thanks for the quick reply! I think I will stick with 3.1 for the time being.
> Can I help by reporting the bug somewhere besides here?
I already located the problem. We don't have a huge list of bugs.


attachment0 (138 bytes) Download Attachment