Re: Small Enhancement Request
Le 10/10/2014 06:40, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit : In message 20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5) man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/ precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table: domain.tld PREPEND X-Foo: bar domain.tld PREPEND X-Bar: for Now you're showing a misunderstanding of Postfix tables. They are key-value mappings. Actually, I *did* (and do) understand that point. I was just asking for it to be confirmed, since another poster suggested yielding multiple values for a single lookup key, which on the face of it made no sense to me. Yes, I use one table per header I need to prepend for a match, with the same match in each table. Sorry for the misguided multivalued key suggestion. Emmanuel.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit : This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table. It would be maximally convenient if the subject text could be interpolated in the following trivial way: Any literal \n (backslash-n) sequence withing text is replaced with an actual newline character. This trivial change would allow prepending of multiple headers to the current e-mail message. This capability would be useful in the context of systems that tag incoming messages for later analysis and/or special processing by tools external to the mail server. Alternatively, given that the Postfix policy server protocol theoretically allows for the possibility of a policy server yielding multiple action=PREPEND text results in response to any given single request (from Postfix), it would be Nice if Postfix would in fact accept a sequence of multiple such responses from a policy server in response to a single request. Hello, Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access table (or a table for each header to PREPEND)? As the PREPEND action does not accept or reject the message, it should be view as a DUNNO action for the evaluation of the access rule. Emmanuel.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
Ronald F. Guilmette: This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table. It would be maximally convenient if the subject text could be interpolated in the following trivial way: Any literal \n (backslash-n) sequence withing text is replaced with an actual newline character. Sorry, I do not support ASCII art. If you have something to say, make it a one-liner. Wietse
Re: Small Enhancement Request
In message 3jd99m4nwtzj...@spike.porcupine.org, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote: Ronald F. Guilmette: This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table. It would be maximally convenient if the subject text could be interpolated in the following trivial way: Any literal \n (backslash-n) sequence withing text is replaced with an actual newline character. Sorry, I do not support ASCII art. If you have something to say, make it a one-liner. Given that I appear to have no real choice in the matter, I shall endeavor to do so.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
In message 32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th alesgroup.com, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?= emmanuel.fu...@external.thalesgroup.com wrote: Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit : Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access table (or a table for each header to PREPEND)? If I was merely using access(5) tables, I would do so, however I am not using such tables in this instance. Rather, I am writing a policy server.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message 32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th alesgroup.com, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?= emmanuel.fu...@external.thalesgroup.com wrote: Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit : Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access table (or a table for each header to PREPEND)? If I was merely using access(5) tables, I would do so, however I am not using such tables in this instance. Rather, I am writing a policy server. Policy services are just fancy access tables. That's how they work in restriction classes, which are just lists of things that all look like access tables. Policy servers have a much richer input syntax, but are at present confined to the same output options as all other restriction building blocks. -- Viktor.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
In message 20141009163728.gt13...@mournblade.imrryr.org, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message 32139_1412843719_543648C7_32139_3580_1_543648C6.9050308@external .th alesgroup.com, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?= emmanuel.fuste@external .thalesgroup.com wrote: Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit : Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access table (or a table for each header to PREPEND)? If I was merely using access(5) tables, I would do so, however I am not using such tables in this instance. Rather, I am writing a policy server. Policy services are just fancy access tables. That's how they work in restriction classes, which are just lists of things that all look like access tables. Hummm... well now, your comment, together with the one made by Emmanuel Fust, are causing me to wonder if I may have been harboring a profound misunderstanding of access tables. What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5) man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/ precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table: domain.tld PREPEND X-Foo: bar domain.tld PREPEND X-Bar: for (This seems to be the exact kind of thing that Emmanuel Fust was suggesting that I try. However I have a dim recollection that long long ago I messed up some of my local blacklists in this exact way, i.e. by having multiple keys, each associated with different values, and when I tried to compile said lists, postmap complained... as seemed entirely reasonable... about the presence of duplicate keys.)
Re: Small Enhancement Request
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5) man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/ precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table: domain.tldPREPEND X-Foo: bar domain.tldPREPEND X-Bar: for Now you're showing a misunderstanding of Postfix tables. They are key-value mappings. Single key, single value. If you postmap(1) such a table, there'll be only one domain.tld and a warning will be logged about the duplicate. If this were a regexp_table(5), the first match wins. With *SQL and LDAP, multiple result rows for a single lookup key are collapsed to a single comma-separated string, which won't do you much good since it will prepend a single mangled header: X-Foo: bar,PREPEND X-Bar: foo Things are rather much simpler than you imagine, and generally pretty much as described. It is a mistake to conjure up clever interpretations of the text. -- Viktor.
Re: Small Enhancement Request
In message 20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5) man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/ precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table: domain.tld PREPEND X-Foo: bar domain.tld PREPEND X-Bar: for Now you're showing a misunderstanding of Postfix tables. They are key-value mappings. Actually, I *did* (and do) understand that point. I was just asking for it to be confirmed, since another poster suggested yielding multiple values for a single lookup key, which on the face of it made no sense to me.
Small Enhancement Request
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the PREPEND text result that can be returned from policy servers and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table. It would be maximally convenient if the subject text could be interpolated in the following trivial way: Any literal \n (backslash-n) sequence withing text is replaced with an actual newline character. This trivial change would allow prepending of multiple headers to the current e-mail message. This capability would be useful in the context of systems that tag incoming messages for later analysis and/or special processing by tools external to the mail server. Alternatively, given that the Postfix policy server protocol theoretically allows for the possibility of a policy server yielding multiple action=PREPEND text results in response to any given single request (from Postfix), it would be Nice if Postfix would in fact accept a sequence of multiple such responses from a policy server in response to a single request.
