>I also have seen ones where [EMAIL PROTECTED] was forged by
>the source.  All sorts of fun.

How would you test for that?  Data portion isn't in the logs - did you find
that with verbose logging turned on?  My maillog is already 400+Meg/day, and
this issue seems kinda sporatic.  I DO have lots of disk space, but man is
that a lot of log for an issue that might take a day or three to confirm.
:-)

>Did a little digging.... it is the start of cleanup, a call to rewrite to
>standardize things and prevent problems.
>
>http://www.postfix.org/rewrite.html
>
>http://www.postfix.org/trivial-rewrite.8.html
>
>So certainly worth testing to see if it has any change on what you feel
>should happen.

Which is what led me to append_at_myorigin...  I'm going to play with it and
see what happens. http://www.postfix.org/cleanup.8.html says that
trivial-rewrite is delegated the task of transforming all (envelope AND
header) addresses to [EMAIL PROTECTED] form - so by design it would be monkeying
with the data header - the issue at hand.  I think in this application I
want it to leave the data header alone (except for of course the required
Received: additions, etc.), just like as I understand RFC2821 says it
should - not that I claim to always fully understand the sometimes cryptic
nuances of RFC specs... :-)

If my main.cf has:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
 reject_unauth_pipelining,
 reject_non_fqdn_sender,
 reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
 reject_unknown_recipient_domain,

... that should mean that I should always have fqdn envelope addresses (as
smtpd is before cleanup) from any external sources, so I can't imagine this
affecting any relayed delivery - only possibly locally generated
notifications.

Thanks for letting me bounce this off ya - sometimes the simple answers
don't seem that simple at first. :-)
-Tony

>--Eric
>
>
>


Reply via email to