From: mouss (usebsdfree.fr)
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 05:58:44 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Gary V a écrit :
> Forgive my lack of familiarity with permit_mx_backup, but if I
> understand this correctly, all mail destined for a domain you are a
> backup MX for will be permitted by permit_mx_backup, so no client will
> ever see your check_policy_service. If you are a backup MX, and you
> relay mail, I think you would have to get rid of permit_mx_backup, and
> instead place domains you relay for in relay_domains. At any rate, list
> all domains in their proper address class. I don't know, but I wonder if
> it would be OK to place the check_policy_service before
> permit_mx_backup, but even if it is OK, your check_helo_access may never
> see any clients.

He can move check_policy up as long as it returns "defer_if_permit"
instead of permit (I mean, in greylisting. it can still return permit to
whitelist a "transaction").

If he really needs permit_mx_backup, then he should reorder all his
rules so that it comes after many anti-spam checks (reject_rbl, ...
etc). but for this to be useful, he must also move
reject_unauth_destination down, which in turn means that one must be
very very careful in the other rules (never return OK).

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]