Schilling, Timo wrote:
The only question left is, why this line negates the "saved_options"?
If it wouldn't, a postfix, which is used in the internet, have to ask
the dns-server more often, because of the own domain which is appended.
It would be very wrong for postfix to append the local domai
Schilling, Timo:
> The only question left is, why this line negates the "saved_options"?
Because it makes no sense to append MY OWN DOMAIN to the hostname
from a REMOTE client.
Wietse
Noel Jones wrote:
> Schilling, Timo wrote:
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Schilling, Timo:
Postfix shouldn't negate the flag (from 1 to 0) so that the function
"res_search" doesn't append the known domain-informations.
But it is done in the above mentioned file, but why?
>>> Because it
Schilling, Timo wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Schilling, Timo:
Postfix shouldn't negate the flag (from 1 to 0) so that the function
"res_search" doesn't append the known domain-informations.
But it is done in the above mentioned file, but why?
Because it makes no sense to append MY OWN DOMAIN to
Schilling, Timo:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Schilling, Timo:
> >> Postfix shouldn't negate the flag (from 1 to 0) so that the function
> >> "res_search" doesn't append the known domain-informations.
> >> But it is done in the above mentioned file, but why?
> >
> > Because it makes no sense to appe
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Schilling, Timo:
>> Postfix shouldn't negate the flag (from 1 to 0) so that the function
>> "res_search" doesn't append the known domain-informations.
>> But it is done in the above mentioned file, but why?
>
> Because it makes no sense to append MY OWN DOMAIN to
> the host
Schilling, Timo:
> Postfix shouldn't negate the flag (from 1 to 0) so that the function
> "res_search" doesn't append the known domain-informations.
> But it is done in the above mentioned file, but why?
Because it makes no sense to append MY OWN DOMAIN to
the hostname from a REMOTE client.
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:57:30PM +0100, Schilling, Timo wrote:
>
>> Hello to everybody,
>>
>> while we use the option "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" we noticed, that
>> single hostnames will be rejected without contacting the dns-servers.
>> After some debugging of the s
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:57:30PM +0100, Schilling, Timo wrote:
> Hello to everybody,
>
> while we use the option "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" we noticed, that
> single hostnames will be rejected without contacting the dns-servers.
> After some debugging of the source code we got to this line:
Hello to everybody,
while we use the option "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" we noticed, that
single hostnames will be rejected without contacting the dns-servers.
After some debugging of the source code we got to this line:
226 _res.options &= ~saved_options;
where the flag "RES_DEFNAMES" will be
10 matches
Mail list logo
