Re: My main.cf - peer review.
- On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:16:05AM -0800, MrC wrote:
>Well, if you feed that "reject_unlisted_recipient" is a risky new
> > > When you use "reject_unlisted_recipient" postfix skips the later
> > > "smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient".
> > > Using "warn_if_reject" doesn't change that. I'd call this an
> > > implementation artifact.
> > Arguably even correct behaviour, though it is far from clear
> > how this should behave.
> Either way. Current (arguably unexpected) behavior should perhaps be
> documented in the warn_if_reject, smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient, and
> reject_unlisted_recipient sections of postconf(5).
> Certainly the behavior doesn't contradict the warn_if_reject documentation
> regarding "risking unnecessary loss of mail", but it does feel in spirit to
> contradict the idea implied by "useful for testing new restrictions in a
> 'live' environment".
restriction, it is not clear that it should apply automatically, after
having been suppressed as a manual restriction. It is of course also
not clear that the current behaviour is optimal, this is a judgement call.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.