On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
Quote from header_checks (5):
""
DUNNO Pretend that the input line did not match any pat-
tern, and inspect the next input line. This action
can be used to shorten the table search.
For backwards compatibility reasons, Postfix also
accepts OK but it is (and always has been) treated
as DUNNO.
""
I was trying to use action OK to jump out of header checks.
That is: not only skip the next patterns, but also the next
input lines.
It's basically the same as with check_recipient_access: on seeing
particular recipient, you want to skip all further recipient checks.
In that case i would use OK, not DUNNO.
This is not how postfix works. It will look up subsequent header
lines as usual.
This is how it works now for header checks, but not for recipient
checks. Right?
Isn't it better to use the same semantics as in restrictions?
(Wasn't that what people ment when they used OK?)
See above for recipient example -- in case there are multiple
recipients of email.
Mmm, i do not see what you mean.
I the case of multiple recipients there can be rejects for some,
no tests for some others (OK), a few test for DUNNO recipients
and all the checks for the rest. Right?
