On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:13:43 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:44:54 +0200
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > when looking at __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX I have noticed that it consists
> > of one superflous rule:
> ...
> > I believe hitting __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY implies not
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 15:21:13 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:44:54 +0200
> >I think that __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY could FP where an external
> >MTA, configured to use a smart host, authenticates into the internal
> >network (see bug 7590)
>
> I don't quite
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:44:54 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
when looking at __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX I have noticed that it consists of
one superflous rule:
...
I believe hitting __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY implies not hitting
__DOS_RELAYED_EXT, because:
header __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:44:54 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when looking at __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX I have noticed that it consists of
> one superflous rule:
...
> I believe hitting __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY implies not hitting
> __DOS_RELAYED_EXT, because:
>
> header
Hello,
when looking at __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX I have noticed that it consists of one
superflous rule:
meta __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX
__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY &&
!__DOS_HAS_LIST_ID &&
!__DOS_HAS_LIST_UNSUB &&
!__DOS_HAS_MAILING_LIST &&
!__DOS_RELAYED_EXT
I believe
