On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:00:47AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
reading the code it implies that maybe I should make
internal_networks explicitly defined (right now its implicit and
thus ==
trusted_networks) to be smaller than trusted networks. This will
probably solve my SPF problem. Is there a reason not to do this?
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:03 AM, Henrik K wrote:
It's fine to do that. This is all documented on wiki etc. I don't
know why
it's still not clear.
As both someone who writes tech documentation, and as someone who
really isn't all that stupid on this topic, I would suggest that the
wiki isn't necessarily as clear as you hope it would be. It does not
spell out things like how internal_networks and trusted_networks
interact with SPF and whitelist_from_rcvd. It makes statements that
when you look at them later you realize "oh, that's what they meant by
that"
(I call to witness the large number of posts on this list that have
read the wiki and still misconfigured trusted_networks)
I'm not trying to attack/criticize the wiki, fyi. I'm trying to say
this is perhaps less clear than it should be. Once I have it
straight in my head I may well try to improve the wiki if I can think
of a better way to describe it. Right now I'm just trying to make
sure I have it right.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
