Thanks, this works like a charm!

Small question though, was there any way for me to figure this out by
myself using the documentation? I notice that for each daemon there is
extensive documentation on which configuration directives are supported,
but I didn't see the cleanup_service_name directive mentioned in
http://www.postfix.org/smtpd.8.html
Also in http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html there is no explanation
to suggest that this directive can be used in smtpd.

Thanks,

Erik.


On 03/13/2010 02:50 PM, mouss wrote:
> Erik Logtenberg a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an smtpd listener that functions as an MX (listening on tcp/25,
>> accepting email for local domains), and a separate smtpd listener that
>> functions as submission server (listening on tcp/587, using mandatory
>> TLS and authenticated smtp, allowing relay services).
>> Now I would like to use header_checks to remove some privacy-information
>> (like the User-Agent header and some information in the first Received
>> header) for all mail that enters through submission. I don't want these
>> checks applied for mail that enters through the regular tcp/25 smtpd. Is
>> this possible?
>>
>> I noticed that the header_checks configuration options only applies to
>> cleanup, not to smtpd. I didn´t see a way to have separate cleanup
>> processes/configurations for the different smtpd's, nor a way to let
>> cleanup behave differently depending on the smtpd that received the email.
>>
> 
> use -o cleanup_service_name in master.cf. something like this:
> 
> submission inet n       -       n       -       -       smtpd
>   -o syslog_name=${submission_syslog_name}
>   -o cleanup_service_name=cleanmsa
>   ...
> 
> cleanmsa      unix    n       -       n       -       0       cleanup
>     -o syslog_name=${submission_syslog_name}
>     -o header_checks=${submission_header_checks}
>     -o mime_header_checks=${submission_mime_header_checks}
>     ...
> 
> (note: the above relies on variables that submission_* that you need to
> define in main.cf).
> 
> 
>> Or is this an example where a multi-instance configuration would be the
>> preferred solution?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Erik.

Reply via email to