Henk van Oers:
Noel Jones wrote:
[...]
There is no bypass mechanism for header_checks.
It whould be nice to have one.
Just to clue you in, here is an example SMTP dialog.
220 server.example.com ESMTP
HELO client.example.com
250 server.example.com
MAIL FROM:sender
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Henk van Oers:
Noel Jones wrote:
[...]
There is no bypass mechanism for header_checks.
It whould be nice to have one.
Just to clue you in, here is an example SMTP dialog.
220 server.example.com ESMTP
HELO client.example.com
250
Henk van Oers:
I think OK can be used to skip not only the rest of the expressions
but also the rest of the header lines.
Sorry, that would break compatibility. Postfix is used for
serious work, not jusr toy systems.
Wietse
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Henk van Oers:
I think OK can be used to skip not only the rest of the expressions
but also the rest of the header lines.
Sorry, that would break compatibility. Postfix is used for
serious work, not jusr toy systems.
Fine, not Ok than.
What
Henk van Oers:
I think OK can be used to skip not only the rest of the expressions
but also the rest of the header lines.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sorry, that would break compatibility. Postfix is used for
serious work, not jusr toy systems.
Henk van Oers:
Fine, not Ok
Noel Jones wrote:
There is no bypass method for header_checks.
Have you tried a filter action at the beginning of the file? Destination
can be another postfix instance, another smtpd, or a content_filter like
amavis or spamd:
/^Received: from .*\.mx\.aol.com (.*\.mx\.aol\.com/ FILTER
On Sunday, March 15, 2009 at 07:13 CET,
Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
There is no bypass method for header_checks.
Have you tried a filter action at the beginning of the file?
Destination can be another postfix instance, another smtpd,
or a content_filter
Henk van Oers a écrit :
[snip]
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
Bill Cole wrote:
Michael Tokarev wrote, On 3/14/09 4:13 PM:
Henk van Oers wrote:
[...]
I the case of multiple recipients there can be rejects for some,
no tests for some others (OK), a few test for DUNNO recipients
and all the checks for the rest. Right?
Yes. For each recipient
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
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Is it so hard to read what the text actually says,
instead of what you want it to say?
Yes. The semantics differ from what i'm used too in recipient_checks.
Magnus wrote:
/^Received: from .*\.mx\.aol.com (.*\.mx\.aol\.com/ FILTER
smtp:[127.0.0.1]:25
That still doesn't bypass the rest of the header checks.
Works for us, has for years. Even tested it using the exact same pattern
and HOLD immediately after the FILTER. The messages are delivered
On Sunday, March 15, 2009 at 21:59 CET,
Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com wrote:
Magnus wrote:
That still doesn't bypass the rest of the header checks.
Works for us, has for years. Even tested it using the exact same
pattern and HOLD immediately after the FILTER. The messages are
Roger Marquis wrote:
Magnus wrote:
/^Received: from .*\.mx\.aol.com (.*\.mx\.aol\.com/ FILTER
smtp:[127.0.0.1]:25
That still doesn't bypass the rest of the header checks.
Works for us, has for years. Even tested it using the exact same pattern
and HOLD immediately after the FILTER. The
Sahil Tandon a écrit :
On Mar 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Henk van Oers wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Is it so hard to read what the text actually says,
instead of what you want it to say?
Yes. The semantics differ from what i'm used too in recipient_checks.
Shall we
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, mouss wrote:
Sahil Tandon a écrit :
On Mar 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Henk van Oers wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Is it so hard to read what the text actually says,
instead of what you want it to say?
Yes. The semantics differ from what i'm
Roger Marquis a écrit :
Magnus wrote:
/^Received: from .*\.mx\.aol.com (.*\.mx\.aol\.com/ FILTER
smtp:[127.0.0.1]:25
That still doesn't bypass the rest of the header checks.
Works for us, has for years.
does it have a green card? otherwise, it shouldn't work ;-p
Even tested it using
mouss a ecrit :
whatever you may think, it doesn't work the way you think
You're right, my mistake. Apologies. Chalk up another one for quick and
dirty QA. At least FILTER bypasses the content_filter so won't be
DISCARDed on that basis.
Roger Marquis
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
Henk van Oers wrote:
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,
Henk van Oers wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
[]
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.
[]
Isn't it better to use the same semantics as in restrictions?
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
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
[]
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.
[]
Isn't it better to
Michael Tokarev wrote, On 3/14/09 4:13 PM:
Henk van Oers wrote:
[...]
I the case of multiple recipients there can be rejects for some,
no tests for some others (OK), a few test for DUNNO recipients
and all the checks for the rest. Right?
Yes. For each recipient independently.
I don't
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.
Henk van Oers wrote:
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
