From: Jim Seymour (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 17:29:31 EST
Tony Earnshaw <> wrote:
>
> Noel Jones wrote:
>
> > Putting all your restrictions under smtpd_recipient_restrictions makes
> > it easier to see what's happening since there is only one list, and
> > makes whitelisting easier as you only have to maintain one list.
> > All but very complex or special-purpose setups can easily have all
> > restrictions under smtpd_recipient_restrictions, and many folks find
> > they make more sense that way.
> >
> > If you don't like it, that's your right, you can arrange your
> > restrictions whatever way works best for you. Postfix will work just
> > fine and exactly as documented either way. But don't say it won't work.
>
> This has been an enormously valuable thread to me. Having
> (knowledgeable) other peoples' opinions and findings when one is
> convinced one has reinvented the wheel contradict one's conclusions is
> the root of learning - and I've learned a lot from the thread.
>
> Thanks Viktor, Vivek, Noel, Rob and Simon for bothering :) the complete
> thread goes into my HOWTO Postfix folder.
I'm *fairly* sure that all of this was discussed as part of my adding
the section "Understanding The Order In Which Restrictions Are Applied"
to http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.txt, just a couple
of weeks ago or so. And I *think* it's all in there.
Main difference is: Then it was Noel, Liviu, Victor and Wietse instead
of Viktor, Vivek, Noel, Rob and Simon ;).
--
Jim Seymour | Spammers sue anti-spammers:
| http://www.LinxNet.com/misc/spam/slapp.php
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | Please donate to the SpamCon Legal Fund:
| http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/
|
|
|