Le 29/12/2010 23:42, Phil Howard a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> It's not about preserving it, per se, but instead, it's about
> detecting any attempts along those lines. It's a test I'd rather do
> before amavis gets the mail. But that's also a larger project I'd
> prefer to avoid. It's a fallback opti
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 17:21, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 05:01:59PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
>> my.mail.server (Postfix) with ESMTP id XX for
>> ; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:23:27 -0500 (EST)
>
> This is added lo
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 05:01:59PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
> my.mail.server (Postfix) with ESMTP id XX for
> ; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:23:27 -0500 (EST)
This is added locally, and is reasonably removed, if that's what
you want.
> Re
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 16:35, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:29:51PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> OK, sot it will apply to all headers after the instant one is added.
>> Now the issue remains how to match the one just added and not others
>> that existed before it ... even
Le 29/12/2010 22:29, Phil Howard a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 15:43, Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
>>> message.
>>
>> The header_checks(5) code is implemen
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:29:51PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> OK, sot it will apply to all headers after the instant one is added.
> Now the issue remains how to match the one just added and not others
> that existed before it ... even if those look exactly the same.
They don't look *exactly* th
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 15:43, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
>> message.
>
> The header_checks(5) code is implemented by cleanup(8) which processes
> the message passe
On 12/29/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38, Noel Jones wrote:
In postfix, you can use a header_checks IGNORE rule to remove unwanted
headers. Be careful that your rule only matches the exact header you want
to remove.
As I understand header_checks, it removes on
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
> message.
The header_checks(5) code is implemented by cleanup(8) which processes
the message passed to it by smtpd(8). The "Received" header that
records the origi
Le 29/12/2010 21:33, Phil Howard a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> In postfix, you can use a header_checks IGNORE rule to remove unwanted
>> headers. Be careful that your rule only matches the exact header you want
>> to remove.
>
> As I understand header_checks,
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:38, Noel Jones wrote:
> In postfix, you can use a header_checks IGNORE rule to remove unwanted
> headers. Be careful that your rule only matches the exact header you want
> to remove.
As I understand header_checks, it removes only what is already in the
message. When
* Noel Jones :
> On 12/29/2010 10:12 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> >I'm sending mail out through amavis for spam checking, and back in,
> >again. There are extra "Received:" headers being added. Is there a
> >way to either remove these, or customize them to "X-Received:" or
> >something? Amavis adds
On 12/29/2010 10:12 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm sending mail out through amavis for spam checking, and back in,
again. There are extra "Received:" headers being added. Is there a
way to either remove these, or customize them to "X-Received:" or
something? Amavis adds one and that's an amavis is
13 matches
Mail list logo
