Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: broken mua? (postfix with dovecot-auth)

Expand Messages
  • mouss
    ... some (many?) people (including this- self) put almost all checks under smtpd_recipient_restrictions, probably because it is easier to manage a linear list,
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 28, 2007
      Alexandre Balistrieri wrote:
      > On Thursday 28 June 2007, mouss wrote:
      >
      >> 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.
      >

      some (many?) people (including this->self) put almost all checks under
      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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.