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

Is split cleanup really needed?

Expand Messages
  • Shaun T. Erickson
    I m rebuilding my postfix installation from scratch. In the past, I ve split cleanup in two, to prevent address rewriting until after filtering: pre-cleanup
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm rebuilding my postfix installation from scratch. In the past, I've
      split cleanup in two, to prevent address rewriting until after
      filtering:

      pre-cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
      -o virtual_alias_maps=
      -o canonical_maps=
      -o sender_canonical_maps=
      -o recipient_canonical_maps=
      -o masquerade_domains=

      and

      cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
      -o mime_header_checks=
      -o nested_header_checks=
      -o body_checks=
      -o header_checks=

      I don't really see this documented anywhere though. What I do see
      documented is adding:

      receive_override_options = no_address_mappings

      to the before-filter smtpd and

      receive_override_options = no_unknown_recipient_checks, no_header_body_checks

      to the after-filter smtpd.

      These two methods seem equivalent (are they?) and I think my use of a
      split cleanup is a holdover from the pre-2.1 days. Is the second way
      now the "proper" way to do this?

      --
      -ste
    • mouss
      ... This is not good. It breaks recipient validation. ... if you only need to disable address rewrite, use the no_address_mappings options. but in some cases,
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Shaun T. Erickson a écrit :
        > I'm rebuilding my postfix installation from scratch. In the past, I've
        > split cleanup in two, to prevent address rewriting until after
        > filtering:
        >
        > pre-cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
        > -o virtual_alias_maps=
        > -o canonical_maps=
        > -o sender_canonical_maps=
        > -o recipient_canonical_maps=
        > -o masquerade_domains=
        >

        This is not good. It breaks recipient validation.

        > [snip]
        >
        > These two methods seem equivalent (are they?) and I think my use of a
        > split cleanup is a holdover from the pre-2.1 days. Is the second way
        > now the "proper" way to do this?
        >

        if you only need to disable address rewrite, use the no_address_mappings
        options.

        but in some cases, multiple cleanups are needed. for example, if you
        want different header_checks.
      • Shaun T. Erickson
        Thanks. Further digging shows that my current setup was as described in http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.postfix.old (which wasn t old when I first
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks. Further digging shows that my current setup was as described
          in http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.postfix.old (which wasn't
          old when I first started using it, heh). I see that it has been
          supplanted by (the now 2-3 year old)
          http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.postfix.html which doesn't
          use the split cleanup and does use no_address_mappings.

          Since even my copy of "The Book of Postfix" is going on 5 years old
          now, I find myself wondering what the current state-of-the-art is for
          setting up postfix, amavisd-new, et al ...

          -ste
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.