Re: Too stupid for rhsbl?

From: Ralf Hildebrandt (no email)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 15:31:57 EST


On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:29:14PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:

> I'm sorry for repeating this stuff, but this shouldn't confuse others,
> and you, Ralf. Every check_something_access accepts ONE maptype:mapname
> argument -- exactly ONE, regardless of indentation. And bare "maptype:mapname"
> in smtpd_mumble_restrictions means "check_mumble_access maptype:mapname".
>
> In the smtpd_recipient_restrictions, your rules really looks like:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ...
> check_recipient_access btree:/etc/postfix/recipient_checks,
> check_sender_access btree:/etc/postfix/sender_checks,
> check_RECIPIENT_access rhsbl:/etc/postfix/rhsbl_sender_domain,
> ...
>
> It's too easy to be confused here, esp. with the above indentation.

But this breaks the line continuation rule!

check_sender_access btree:/etc/postfix/sender_checks rhsbl:/etc/postfix/rhsbl_sender_domain
!=
check_sender_access btree:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
                    rhsbl:/etc/postfix/rhsbl_sender_domain

?

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V A)   
Charite Campus Virchow-Klinikum                 Tel.  +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Referat V A - Kommunikationsnetze -             Fax.  +49 (0)30-450 570-916
Stupid idea: Putting diesel fuel in a gasoline car.
             Substituting corn oil for milk in recipes.
             Attempting to secure a Windows system.
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to  with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users







Hosted Email Solutions

Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD