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

Re: header checks not working

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.