- Mar 27, 2013On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Noel Jones <njones@...> wrote:
> On 3/27/2013 7:18 PM, Matthew Hall wrote:Makes sense. Corrected.
>> I altered the restrictions according to the new advice:
>> relay_restrictions - removed
> there's no reason to remove the safety net.
> Your smtpd_recipient_restrictions look great, but I will mentionAgree. Corrected.
> list.dsbl.org is dead and unlikely to return; probably best to
> remove that line instead of just commenting it out.
One other question here. So, if I have a host which matches
permit_sasl_authenticated, but also matches one of the rejections
present in check_reverse_client_hostname_access, but
permit_sasl_authenticated comes first in recipient_restrictions, then
it's still going to work right, because the first rule in the chain
wins, correct? Just want to be sure I parsed the documentation
> -- Noel JonesThanks,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>