On 11/18/2009 12:10 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > That still stalls at RELAYCLIENT being a yes/no value. Tying it to a > policy might result in some additional features; I can recap three: > > * restrict some local users, as in Alexander's quote above; >
Yeah... by not setting RELAYCLIENT. > * whitelist forwarders, as in my quote above; and > I'm not even really sure what you were suggesting. You can use RELAYCLIENT to allow forwarding without authentication, or rely on authentication to control forwarding. This seems to be much more complicated in your mind than you are communicating. Could you enlighten us what kind of "restrictive policy" you had in mind? > * protect internal addresses: For example, as an alternative to > Courier's outbox, a user may configure her client to store sent mail > by adding abcc:[email protected]. Then the problem is to > enforce the policy so that [email protected] can send mail to > her Sent folder. More use cases may come to mind, e.g. guard > children's mailboxes, limit a vip's direct reachability, et cetera. > Now you're talking about accepting mail to local addresses, which is completely unrelated to controlling relaying mail. A policy mechanism exists for that already. It's documented as "localmailfilter". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
