Is split cleanup really needed?
- I'm rebuilding my postfix installation from scratch. In the past, I've
split cleanup in two, to prevent address rewriting until after
pre-cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
cleanup unix n - n - 0 cleanup
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?
- Shaun T. Erickson a écrit :
> I'm rebuilding my postfix installation from scratch. In the past, I'veThis is not good. It breaks recipient validation.
> split cleanup in two, to prevent address rewriting until after
> 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=
> [snip]if you only need to disable address rewrite, use the no_address_mappings
> 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?
but in some cases, multiple cleanups are needed. for example, if you
want different header_checks.
- 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 ...