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

Re: header checks not working

Expand Messages
  • Rob Brandt
    ... Bingo: -o receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it
    Message 1 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote, On 7/1/2009 10:40 AM:

      >
      > Do you have anything like:
      > "receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks" in master.cf for the
      > content_filter reinjection?
      > This will not match if so.


      Bingo:

      -o
      receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks

      Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:

      -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks

      Rob
    • Jan P. Kessler
      ... header_checks will be executed twice
      Message 2 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > Bingo:
        >
        > -o
        > receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
        >
        >
        > Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
        >
        > -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks

        header_checks will be executed twice
      • Rob Brandt
        ... That doesn t sound right or good. What s the right way to do this? Rob
        Message 3 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Jan P. Kessler wrote, On 7/1/2009 12:34 PM:
          >> Bingo:
          >>
          >> -o
          >> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
          >>
          >>
          >> Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
          >>
          >> -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
          >
          > header_checks will be executed twice
          >
          >

          That doesn't sound right or good. What's the right way to do this?

          Rob
        • Victor Duchovni
          ... Nothing wrong with that, especially if your header_checks file is reasonably short and simple (as it should be). If you are using 2.6, you could try a
          Message 4 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:50:02PM -0700, Rob Brandt wrote:

            >
            >
            > Jan P. Kessler wrote, On 7/1/2009 12:34 PM:
            >>> Bingo:
            >>>
            >>> -o
            >>> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
            >>>
            >>> -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
            >> header_checks will be executed twice
            >
            > That doesn't sound right or good. What's the right way to do this?

            Nothing wrong with that, especially if your header_checks file is
            reasonably short and simple (as it should be).

            If you are using 2.6, you could try a multi-instance config, with
            separate header checks before and after the filter.

            http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html

            --
            Viktor.

            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:
            <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

            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.
          • Sahil Tandon
            ... It is. As noted in regexp_table(5), each pattern is a POSIX regular expression, whose syntax is documented in re_format(7). For posterity (and the
            Message 5 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 01 Jul 2009, Magnus B├Ąck wrote:

              > > Sahil Tandon wrote:
              > >
              > > > I prefer pcre:, but the following patterns should work with regexp:
              > > > as well.
              >
              > No, {n} isn't supported by regexp.

              It is. As noted in regexp_table(5), each pattern is a POSIX regular
              expression, whose syntax is documented in re_format(7). For posterity (and
              the interested reader), a relevant excerpt from the man page:

              A bound is `{' followed by an unsigned decimal integer, possibly followed
              by `,' possibly followed by another unsigned decimal integer, always fol-
              lowed by `}'. The integers must lie between 0 and RE_DUP_MAX (255=)
              inclusive, and if there are two of them, the first may not exceed the
              second. An atom followed by a bound containing one integer i and no
              comma matches a sequence of exactly i matches of the atom. An atom fol-
              lowed by a bound containing one integer i and a comma matches a sequence
              of i or more matches of the atom. An atom followed by a bound containing
              two integers i and j matches a sequence of i through j (inclusive)
              matches of the atom.

              Also see the EXAMPLE BODY FILTER MAP in regexp_table(5) for another example
              of how to use bounds with regexp.

              --
              Sahil Tandon <sahil@...>
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.