- On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Noel Jones <njones@...> wrote:
> On 3/27/2013 7:18 PM, Matthew Hall wrote:Makes sense. Corrected.
>> I altered the restrictions according to the new advice:
>> relay_restrictions - removed
> there's no reason to remove the safety net.
> Your smtpd_recipient_restrictions look great, but I will mentionAgree. Corrected.
> list.dsbl.org is dead and unlikely to return; probably best to
> remove that line instead of just commenting it out.
One other question here. So, if I have a host which matches
permit_sasl_authenticated, but also matches one of the rejections
present in check_reverse_client_hostname_access, but
permit_sasl_authenticated comes first in recipient_restrictions, then
it's still going to work right, because the first rule in the chain
wins, correct? Just want to be sure I parsed the documentation
> -- Noel JonesThanks,
- On 2013-03-27 23:11, Matthew Hall wrote:
> I ran into a bit of an issue trying out fqrdns.pcre as recommendedadd permit_sasl_authenticated before fqrdns.pcre testing
> here in this thread. The header in the file recommended adding it
> smtpd_client_restrictions. However if I place it there, I end up
> rejecting mail even from SASL authenticated client devices, if they
> also match a rule in fqrdns.pcre.
senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own
trashcan, so if you like to get reply, dont do it