On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Noel Jones <njo...@megan.vbhcs.org> wrote: > On 3/27/2013 7:18 PM, Matthew Hall wrote: >> I altered the restrictions according to the new advice: >> >> relay_restrictions - removed > > there's no reason to remove the safety net.
Makes sense. Corrected. > Your smtpd_recipient_restrictions look great, but I will mention > list.dsbl.org is dead and unlikely to return; probably best to > remove that line instead of just commenting it out. Agree. Corrected. One other question here. So, if I have a host which matches permit_sasl_authenticated, but also matches one of the rejections present in check_reverse_client_hostname_access, but permit_sasl_authenticated comes first in recipient_restrictions, then it's still going to work right, because the first rule in the chain wins, correct? Just want to be sure I parsed the documentation correctly. > -- Noel Jones Thanks, Matthew
