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

Re: Verify cache missing?

Expand Messages
  • Nikolaos Milas
    ... Yes, all messages leaving from the server do so mainly either through permit_mynetworks or permit_sasl_authenticated; So, I see, when
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 8/11/2012 8:46 μμ, Wietse Venema wrote:

      > You had tons of whitelisting rules that fire long before processing
      > would reach reject_unverified_recipient.

      Yes, all messages leaving from the server do so mainly either through
      permit_mynetworks or permit_sasl_authenticated; So, I see, when
      reject_unverified_recipient is at the end, a message would be accepted
      based on those rules and would LATER undergo recipient checking and
      fail, causing a bounce message, whereas, when
      reject_unverified_recipient is at the start, the recipient is directly
      checked, before the message is accepted, so it is directly rejected (and
      the verify cache is used, too).

      Before closing the thread, I would say that IMHO we were saying exactly
      the same thing below (smtpd_recipient_restrictions was never being used
      because it was at the end, which means that there were other rules that
      in practice never allowed processing of rules to reach the end). :-)

      On 8/11/2012 3:59 μμ, Wietse Venema wrote:
      >> So, I conclude that in this case there is no such cache because
      >> >reject_unverified_recipient is at the end of
      >> >"smtpd_recipient_restrictions", so in essence it is never used...
      > Bull. If some restriction AT THE END is not used, then you have
      > some other restriction BEFORE THE END that does match.

      ... But only now I have figured out exactly what was happening.

      Thanks and best regards,
      Nick
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.