Re: [vchkpw] SENDER_NOCHECK Question

2005-06-23 Thread tonix (Antonio Nati)
At 22.35 22/06/2005, you wrote: Does SENDER_NOCHECK=1 in tcp.smtp mean that all aspects of chkuser get bypassed when coming from that specific IP? No. It means that no check is done on sender e-mail address (formal check on address). I've been trying to implement this feature and having trouble

Re: [vchkpw] SENDER_NOCHECK Question

2005-06-23 Thread Anthony Clodfelter
tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote: At 22.35 22/06/2005, you wrote: Does SENDER_NOCHECK=1 in tcp.smtp mean that all aspects of chkuser get bypassed when coming from that specific IP? No. It means that no check is done on sender e-mail address (formal check on address). I've been trying to

[vchkpw] SENDER_NOCHECK Question

2005-06-22 Thread Anthony Clodfelter
Does SENDER_NOCHECK=1 in tcp.smtp mean that all aspects of chkuser get bypassed when coming from that specific IP? I've been trying to implement this feature and having trouble getting any entry in tcp.smtp to bypass the chkuser rules. My current tcp.smtp is 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=