Henk van Oers:
>
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Henk van Oers:
> >>
> >> Quote from header_checks (5):
> >> ""
> >> DUNNO Pretend that the input line did not match any pat-
> >> tern, and inspect the next input line. This action
> >> can be used to shorten the table search.
> >>
> >> For backwards compatibility reasons, Postfix also
> >> accepts OK but it is (and always has been) treated
> >> as DUNNO.
> >> ""
> >>
> >> I was trying to use action OK to jump out of header checks.
> >> That is: not only skip the next patterns, but also the next
> >> input lines.
> >
> > According to the above documentation, Postfix does not work that
> > way.
> >
> > Whitelisting based on a single header line is unsafe.
>
> I know. spammers can insert/spoof whatever.
>
> > Doing a proper job requires an external content filter.
>
> I want to reject as mutch as posible, so i have a header_checks file.
> To bypass the header check for trusted senders i tryed:
> if /^Return-Path:/
> /trusted_sender/ OK
> endif
>
> As i now understand it, i have to put this header check in a
> separate file and the other header_check file will be ignored.
> Right?
Wrong. Is it so hard to read what the text actually says,
instead of what you want it to say?
Wietse
> (and, yes i know, the sender can be spoofed,
> but the spammer will be rejected before the data fase)
>
>
