On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:50:02PM -0700, Rob Brandt wrote:
>
>
> Jan P. Kessler wrote, On 7/1/2009 12:34 PM:
>>> Bingo:
>>>
>>> -o
>>> receive_override_options=no_header_body_checks,no_unknown_recipient_checks
>>>
>>>
>>> Any negative consequences for eliminating this line, or changing it to:
>>>
>>> -o receive_override_options=no_unknown_recipient_checks
>> header_checks will be executed twice
>
> That doesn't sound right or good. What's the right way to do this?
Nothing wrong with that, especially if your header_checks file is
reasonably short and simple (as it should be).
If you are using 2.6, you could try a multi-instance config, with
separate header checks before and after the filter.
http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
