Re: broken mua? (postfix with dovecot-auth)
- Alexandre Balistrieri wrote:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007, mouss wrote:some (many?) people (including this->self) put almost all checks under
>> Alexandre Balistrieri wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 27 June 2007, mouss wrote:
>>>> Alexandre Balistrieri wrote:
>>>>> It seems that the flow's control is better using OK or DUNNO with
>>>>> separate restriction's stages. OK goes to the next stage and DUNNO goes
>>>>> to the next line into stage. Let me know if i am in right track.
>>>> It's too late to assess your statement, but I see what you mean. This is
>>>> however rarely needed. see below. and in your case, you are repeating
>>>> the same checks, so that's useless.
>>> It seems that it has a trend in using only smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
>>> Then why not to substitute all for smtpd_uce_restrictions?
>> you're misunderstading me. I said to use smtpd_recipient_restrictions
>> only _because_ you were repeating the _same_ checks all over again. It
>> is ok to do
> Sorry, i did not can to explain my conclusion.
> I have seen several smtpd_recipient_restrictions examples with all
> restrictions together but no useful example with smtpd_*_restrictions.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions, probably because it is easier to manage a
linear list, but also to avoid having to put
permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated N times.