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

Re: header checks not working

Expand Messages
  • Jan P. Kessler
    ... header_checks will be executed twice
    Message 1 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
      > 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 2 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
        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 3 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
          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 4 of 20 , Jul 1, 2009
            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.