Thanks for taking the time to try to assist my limited brain in
understanding this Noel. It is frustrating, because I thought I at least
had a decent handle on how these checks worked...
Noel Jones wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions is not the last section; the message
still must pass
On 8/26/2010 6:31 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
If you've specified smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=yes, that check
is also after smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Since smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=yes is the default, it happens
after the recipient_restrictions *without* my having to specify it,
On 8/22/2010 11:42 AM, p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
Reading RESTRICTION_CLASS_README confused me as to whether
adding a Restriction (or a defined smtpd_restriction_classes
group), to the right side of an access table,
On 2010-08-24 8:58 AM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 8/24/2010 7:41 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I guess I need some clarification now...
My understanding is this is not true if you have all checks under
recipient_restrictions (and delay_reject enabled) - an OK in this
case
On 8/25/2010 12:50 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-08-24 8:58 AM, Noel Jonesnjo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 8/24/2010 7:41 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I guess I need some clarification now...
My understanding is this is not true if you have all checks under
recipient_restrictions (and
Charles Marcus:
On 2010-08-22 8:38 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 8/22/2010 7:34 PM:
So if we reverse the scenario and put the REJECT first, it's a final
decision? If so, and if I've described the situation correctly, why do
we have this
On 8/24/2010 7:41 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-08-22 8:38 PM, Stan Hoeppners...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 8/22/2010 7:34 PM:
So if we reverse the scenario and put the REJECT first, it's a final
decision? If so, and if I've described the situation correctly, why
So I have,
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, check_helo_access
regexp:/etc/postfix/heloaccess.cf
If I put the following into heloaccess.cf, for .cc hostnames,
/^.*\.[a-z][a-z]$/ reject_unknown_helo_hostname
Am I adding to the restrictions? Making it,
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
So I have,
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/heloaccess.cf
If I put the following into heloaccess.cf, for .cc hostnames,
/^.*\.[a-z][a-z]$/
Magnus Bäck put forth on 8/22/2010 10:04 AM:
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
So I have,
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/heloaccess.cf
If I put the following into heloaccess.cf, for
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 17:26 CEST,
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Magnus Bäck put forth on 8/22/2010 10:04 AM:
A regexp match will cause the reject_unknown_helo_hostname
restriction to be evaluated. If it indeed results in a
rejection the mail will be rejected no
Stan Hoeppner:
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the order of his
smtpd_*_restrictions and whether he's using delayed evaluation. If he's
using the multiple section restrictions style with delayed eval it's
possible he may have an OK in a later table that causes the mail to be
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
So I have,
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/heloaccess.cf
If I put the following into heloaccess.cf, for .cc hostnames,
/^.*\.[a-z][a-z]$/
On 8/22/2010 11:42 AM, p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
So I have,
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/heloaccess.cf
If I put the following into heloaccess.cf, for .cc
Wietse Venema put forth on 8/22/2010 11:13 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the order of his
smtpd_*_restrictions and whether he's using delayed evaluation. If he's
using the multiple section restrictions style with delayed eval it's
possible he may have an OK
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 8/22/2010 7:34 PM:
So if we reverse the scenario and put the REJECT first, it's a final
decision? If so, and if I've described the situation correctly, why do
we have this opposite behavior between whitelisting and blacklisting?
If I've not described this
16 matches
Mail list logo
