On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 08:02:03PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Solar Designer: > > OK. I took a look at the code and I see those difficulties now. How > > about something like the attached patch? It's totally untested other > > than that it compiles, and it's probably wrong (especially considering > > that it's the first time I am dealing with this code) - but I think it > > illustrates what I am speaking about. > > It appears to disable body_checks
On purpose - after a match resulting in ACCEPT, that is. I admit that I had my specific use case in mind, though. > and perhaps Milters too. Yes, it looks so. Instead of CLEANUP_FLAG_FILTER_ALL I think it should use CLEANUP_FLAG_FILTER. > This is > not hard to fix. The idea of redirecting header callback to a NOOP > is interesting (but this needs to be part of the per-message state, > as it must not affect the next message). DISCARD does the same thing with flags, so I assumed it was per-message. No? > I think it is not a problem to add an ACCEPT this message action > now. You don't have to provide the whole solution. Does this mean you're going to implement it? Sounds great if so. And the default action feature, please - I'd use them together. In my demo patch, I apply the default action in all not-ACCEPT cases, but this will need to be restricted to have the default action applied when no other action was found. Also, the default action name could be checked against a list of reasonable ones (report an error to the Postfix install admin if not). Thanks, Alexander
