Hi all,
As far as I have understood, check_recipient_access in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions uses the original RCPT TO addresses for
lookup (and not on the results after resolving (virtual) aliases).
I want all mails received for a certain user to put on HOLD
for a while (because I am repairing h
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> I'm running two spamfilters on two machines, which are accessed with^M
>> milter. In case of an error (eg: the first milter service is not running),^M
>> I would like that Postfix wold use the second one on the other host.^M
>> ^M
>> I was expecting something something like
On Fri, June 12, 2009 8:51 am, Vasilios Tzanoudakis said:
> Is there any way that i can use 2 content filters? system works for ONE
> of the entries below (main.cf).
You can have any number of content filters, but you must chain them
together manually.
Postfix -> filter1 -> Postfix -> filter2 ->
> --master.cf--
> smtp inet n - n - - smtpd -v
>
> -- end of postfinger output --
>
>
> WTF am I doing wrong ??
Show all of master.cf
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschim
On Fri, June 12, 2009 9:08 am, Stefan Palme said:
> As far as I have understood, check_recipient_access in
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions uses the original RCPT TO addresses for
> lookup (and not on the results after resolving (virtual) aliases).
Correct.
> I want all mails received for a certai
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 09:47 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> The only solution I can think of that isn't overcomplicated would be to
> clone the virtual or local transport in master.cf (depends on the address
> class of the domain) and use the transport table to redirect the final
> address to that tran
Being new to the scene I've implemented a postfix\amavisd-new config, seems
to work really well once you get your head around it. Anybody got any good
reasons not to use amavis and any suggestions for alternatives (Mid-Large
email volume)
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfi
Is this right?
"You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or not."
I'm gob smacked if it is?
Wow.
Thank you very much for everybody who answered my question. In fact
some of the problems related with captcha I already knew, but some of
them I've never thinked about.
In fact the problem that I have is that one of my lame clients is
asking for a solution like this, so I need to find so
On Fri, June 12, 2009 12:12 pm, Steve said:
> Is this right?
>
> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
> explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or not."
Yes, that's correct.
--
M
William Michael:
> Jun 11 16:34:12 dns1 postfix/smtpd[4165]: connect to subsystem
> private/proxymap: Connection refused
You removed the proxymap service from master.cf. Don't do that!
Try running:
postfix upgrade-configuration
postfix reload
to restore.
BTW This won't restore all miss
Stefan Palme:
> Hi all,
>
> As far as I have understood, check_recipient_access in
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions uses the original RCPT TO addresses for
> lookup (and not on the results after resolving (virtual) aliases).
>
> I want all mails received for a certain user to put on HOLD
> for a w
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:51 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Fri, June 12, 2009 12:12 pm, Steve said:
>
> > Is this right?
> >
> > "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> > header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
> > explicitly "OK" a clie
One correction for missing ":" below.
Wietse Venema:
> Stefan Palme:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As far as I have understood, check_recipient_access in
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions uses the original RCPT TO addresses for
> > lookup (and not on the results after resolving (virtual) aliases).
> >
> >
* Steve :
> Is this right?
Yes
> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
> explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or not."
>
> I'm gob smacked if it is?
Why?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Steve :
Is this right?
Yes
"You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or not."
I'm gob smacked if it is?
Why?
Be
Mark Goodge:
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * Steve :
> >> Is this right?
> >
> > Yes
> >> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> >> header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
> >> explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or no
I need our users to be able to send and receive large messages (max
50MB) to/from remote destinations, but *not* when sending to each other
(local mail only)...
Is there a way to do this without a policy server?
myhost ~ # postconf -n
alias_maps = hash:/etc/mail/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/dat
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 08:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mark Goodge:
> > Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > * Steve :
> > >> Is this right?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
> > >> header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whe
Steve wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 08:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Mark Goodge:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Steve :
Is this right?
Yes
"You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
explicitly "OK" a
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Steve wrote:
Wietse
Always a clever answer for a bug - nice one :-) wanker.
As someone who mostly site on the side of this forum but is extremely
appreciative of the work Wietse and others have done to bring Postfix to
the community, I'd like to suggest that i
* Mark Goodge :
> I wouldn't call it a bug, since it's a feature that works as designed.
> It is, however, a design choice that makes the feature less useful than
> it otherwise could have been. But the point here is that content
> inspection isn't a core part of the job of an MTA anyway, so if th
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:36 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 08:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> Mark Goodge:
> >>> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > Is this right?
> Yes
> > "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:47 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Mark Goodge :
>
> > I wouldn't call it a bug, since it's a feature that works as designed.
> > It is, however, a design choice that makes the feature less useful than
> > it otherwise could have been. But the point here is that content
* EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
> > I only use it for stuff I absolutely don't want to see. Everything
> > else gets handled by amavisd-new
>
> Which is flaky.
Not here.
> The fix is to make the content scanner in Postfix work as it should -
> or do we keep making excuses for it so w
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > > I only use it for stuff I absolutely don't want to see. Everything
> > > else gets handled by amavisd-new
> >
> > Which is flaky.
>
> Not here.
And the tens of thousands of Barracuda o
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
It's a bug. Read the original question carefully. If I'm pasting the
original headers into the BODY of a fresh mail, and the header filters
are *blocking* it - is that intended behaviour? Answer (hopefully) 'No'.
If the header-only filters are bloc
Hi, I use postfix-2.2.8 with qpopper/amavis/maia...is possible to export
(and then import on another mail server) the
user mailbox stored in /var/spool/mail/user1, /var/spool/mail/user2 ?
Thanks.
--
Salvatore.
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:09 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
>
> [1] http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
>
> Mark
Did you find that all on your own, or did you get some help with that?
I honestly can't be tossed to bother with the guy and raising
Quoting Mark Goodge :
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
It's a bug. Read the original question carefully. If I'm pasting the
original headers into the BODY of a fresh mail, and the header filters
are *blocking* it - is that intended behaviour? Answer (hopefully) 'No'.
If the head
* Steve :
> /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic host
> in headers
OK
> In the logs; tripped on the header filter;
> Jun 12 11:01:58 mail4 postfix/cleanup[1419]: B9F16AC09D: reject: header
> Received: from [192.168.1.xx] (xx [192.168.1.xx])??by mail4.xx.co.uk
>
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> * Steve :
>
> > /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic host
> > in headers
>
> OK
>
> > In the logs; tripped on the header filter;
> > Jun 12 11:01:58 mail4 postfix/cleanup[1419]: B9F16AC09D: reject: header
> > Received: from [192.168.1.xx]
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:40 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
> > * Steve :
> >
> > > /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic
> > > host in headers
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > In the logs; tripped on the header filter;
> > > Jun 12 11:01:58 mail4 post
* EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
> > Since the headers look like:
> >
> > Received: from [192.168.1.xx] (xx [192.168.1.xx]) NEWLINE
> > by mail4.xx.co.uk (xx) with ESMTPA id B9F16AC09D NEWLINE
> > for ...
> >
> > You COULD solve this using:
> >
> > /^Received: from .
* EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
> > for ...
> >
> > You COULD solve this using:
> >
> > /^Received: from .*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic).*by / REJECT
> > dynamic host in headers
> >
> > It's worth a try.
> >
> Indeed, but it's *not* in the header section of the email,
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> > > /^Received: from .*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic).*by / REJECT
> > > dynamic host in headers
> > >
> > > It's worth a try.
>
> > Indeed, but it's *not* in the header section of the email, is it! It has
> > been pasted into the *BODY* of an email.
>
> Your syste
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:50 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > > for ...
> > >
> > > You COULD solve this using:
> > >
> > > /^Received: from .*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic).*by / REJECT
> > > dynamic host in headers
> > >
> > > It's w
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:40 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
* Steve :
/^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic host in
headers
OK
In the logs; tripped on the header filter;
Jun 12 11:01:58 mail
Mark Goodge:
> I wouldn't call it a bug, since it's a feature that works as designed.
> It is, however, a design choice that makes the feature less useful than
> it otherwise could have been. [other good points omitted]
For SMTP submissions, header/body checks whitelisting could be done
by addin
* EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
> Yep, I had already done that. I tried the same thing to ab...@bt.com and
> got the same result.
Log entry for exactly that case?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschi
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:56 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk :
>
> > Yep, I had already done that. I tried the same thing to ab...@bt.com and
> > got the same result.
>
> Log entry for exactly that case?
>
reads 6 minutes later but was sent to 'ab...@bt.c
Hi,
I try to add a 1 second delay between each smtp sent to a spécifique
transport.
I followed this help file (in french as I feel more confortable in this
langage) :
http://postfix.traduc.org/index.php/QSHAPE_README.html#deferred_queue
so I did :
/etc/postfix/transport:
problem.exempl
If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
body content, then I will fix it.
All I ask for is that conditions be independently reproducible.
Wietse
On Friday, June 12, 2009 at 16:13 CEST,
Sasa wrote:
> Hi, I use postfix-2.2.8 with qpopper/amavis/maia...is possible to
> export (and then import on another mail server) the
> user mailbox stored in /var/spool/mail/user1, /var/spool/mail/user2 ?
Yes. It's just a file.
--
Magnus Bäck
m
Steve:
> It is easy enough to reproduce. Just build a header filter like this;
> (put aside the fact this is going to catch a shed load of legit mail)
>
> /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic
> host in headers
This matches Received: headers.
> This mail;
> Subje
Ihsan Dogan wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
I'm running two spamfilters on two machines, which are accessed with^M
milter. In case of an error (eg: the first milter service is not running),^M
I would like that Postfix wold use the second one on the other host.^M
^M
I was expecting something somethi
Hi, on actually mail server I have the following permission:
-rw-rw username mail
..but after copy on the new server the permssion are modified in root-root e
therefore I am forced to change permission to username-mail.
Thanks.
--
Salvatore.
- Original Message -
From: "
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> body content, then I will fix it.
>
> All I ask for is that conditions be independently reproducible.
>
> Wietse
In the meantime - how do I white-list this?
On 6/11/09, dan trainor wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> dan trainor:
>> > Hello, all -
>> >
>> > I've sent an email through Postfix which has one recipient, which is an
>> > alias via alias_maps (mysql lookup table). I've had just a little bit
>> of
>> >
Wietse Venema:
> Steve:
> > It is easy enough to reproduce. Just build a header filter like this;
> > (put aside the fact this is going to catch a shed load of legit mail)
> >
> > /^Received: from.*(cmodem|dhcp|adsl|broadband|dynamic)/ REJECT dynamic
> > host in headers
>
> This matches Received:
Steve:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> > body content, then I will fix it.
> >
> > All I ask for is that conditions be independently reproducible.
> >
> > Wietse
> In the meantime - how do I whi
dan trainor:
> Just to follow up looks like this process has taken too long. I
> eventually killed it. I'm happy that things are working *exactly* as they
> should, however.
>
> We ended up splitting up that list of 300,000+ recips in to around 6 aliases
> of 50,000 recips. This method is/w
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:36 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> > > body content, then I will fix it.
> > >
> > > All I ask for is that conditions be independentl
On 6/12/09, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> dan trainor:
>
> > Just to follow up looks like this process has taken too long. I
> > eventually killed it. I'm happy that things are working *exactly* as
> they
> > should, however.
> >
> > We ended up splitting up that list of 300,000+ recips in to aro
Hi all,
I am currently working on a new logfile analyzer for postfix.
Regarding this I will probably have some questions. Here the
first one:
When an incoming mail is rejected because of one of the rules
defined by smtpd_{sender,recipient,data,helo}_restrictions, this
rejection is logged with que
Stefan Palme wrote:
Hi all,
I am currently working on a new logfile analyzer for postfix.
Regarding this I will probably have some questions. Here the
first one:
When an incoming mail is rejected because of one of the rules
defined by smtpd_{sender,recipient,data,helo}_restrictions, this
reject
1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
record for a given sender domain? I guess it won't as there's
reject_unknown_sender but I'd prefer to be sure.
2. Is there a maximum number of mx records that will be checked by
postfix? Are there any standards requiring or recom
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:41 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> A QUEUEID is created when the number of accepted recipients
> for a message is greater than zero.
>
> In the case of a multi-recipient message where some recipients
> are accepted and some rejected, recipients before the first
> accepted re
Stefan Palme wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:41 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
A QUEUEID is created when the number of accepted recipients
for a message is greater than zero.
In the case of a multi-recipient message where some recipients
are accepted and some rejected, recipients before the first
This is my first attempt to get Postfix-2.6 working with SASL.
Unfortunately, it isn't. This is the 'postconf -n' output:
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/local/sbin
config_directory = /usr/local/etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/local/libexec/postfix
data_directory = /var
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:36 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Steve:
> > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > > If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> > > > body content, then I will fix it.
> > > >
>
Am 12.6.2009 17:50 Uhr, Noel Jones schrieb:
Is such a setup possible with Postfix?^M
>>> Not supported. Eror control is limited to milter_default_action.
>> I see.
>>
>> If I specify "milter_default_action = reject" and there is an error with
>> the milter daemon, Postfix will give a 554. Wha
Jan P. Kessler:
> 1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
> record for a given sender domain? I guess it won't as there's
> reject_unknown_sender but I'd prefer to be sure.
It looks up MX records. As with many other Postfix features, there
is no access control on inform
Jan P. Kessler wrote:
1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
record for a given sender domain? I guess it won't as there's
reject_unknown_sender but I'd prefer to be sure.
If there's no MX, the sender domain's A record will be used.
If there's no A record either, t
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:59:33PM -0400, Gerard wrote:
> broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes
> smtpd_sasl_local_domain = $myhostname
> smtpd_sasl_path = smtpd
> smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous
>
> This is the output when
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:09 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:36 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Steve:
> > > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > > > If there is a reproducible example where header_checks
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 05:06:18PM +0200, St?phane MERLE wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try to add a 1 second delay between each smtp sent to a sp?cifique
> transport.
>
> I followed this help file (in french as I feel more confortable in this
> langage) :
> http://postfix.traduc.org/index.php/QSHAPE_READM
Hi,
http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html
[]'s
--
Eduardo Júnior
GNU/Linux user #423272
:wq
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:40:27PM +0100, EASY
steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
> > Currently, as in, what is available now. I am not good
> > at predicting the future.
>
> I know. If you were I would not be asking for basic features you never
> had the foresight to see would be requested
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:52 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:40:27PM +0100, EASY
> steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
>
> > > Currently, as in, what is available now. I am not good
> > > at predicting the future.
> >
> > I know. If you were I would not be asking fo
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:29:02 -0400
Victor Duchovni wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:59:33PM -0400, Gerard wrote:
>
>> broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
>> smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
>> smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes
>> smtpd_sasl_local_domain = $myhostname
>> smtpd_sasl_path = smtpd
>> sm
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jan P. Kessler:
1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
record for a given sender domain?
It looks up MX records. As with many other Postfix features, there
is no access control on information that does not exist.
Noel Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:40:03PM -0400, Gerard wrote:
> >> AUTH PLAIN Z2VyYXJkXE9nZXJhcmRcT2dlcmFyZA==
>
> My fault! I had the wrong permissions on the 'sasldb2.db' file. All is
> well now.
If this still reflects your current username/password, change it!
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: of
hi,
thanks for your help, is there any tutorial or help page to upgrade my
2.5.1 to 2.6.2 ? I am on ubuntu 2.6.28.1--std-ipv4-32 ?
do I have to recompile it from the source code ?
Thanks again !
Stéphane
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 05:06:18PM +0200, St?phane MERLE
Noel Jones:
> Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> > 1. Will check_sender_mx_access lookup an a record if there is no mx
> > record for a given sender domain? I guess it won't as there's
> > reject_unknown_sender but I'd prefer to be sure.
>
> If there's no MX, the sender domain's A record will be used.
> If
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:34:42PM +0200, St?phane MERLE wrote:
> hi,
>
> thanks for your help, is there any tutorial or help page to upgrade my
> 2.5.1 to 2.6.2 ? I am on ubuntu 2.6.28.1--std-ipv4-32 ?
> do I have to recompile it from the source code ?
If you are using 2.5.1, you could try
EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk a écrit :
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:51 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
>> On Fri, June 12, 2009 12:12 pm, Steve said:
>>
>>> Is this right?
>>>
>>> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
>>> header or body checks. Header and body chec
I still am having a problem getting 'sender_dependent_relaying" to work.
This is a snippet of the sender_relay file:
gmail.com smtp:smtp.gmail.com:587
yahoo.com smtp:smtp.plus.mail.yahoo.com:587
Running postmap -q gmail.com sender_relay produces:
smtp:smtp.gmail.com:587
How
Thank You for Your time and answer, Victor:
> The only thing recorded by Postfix is either the SMTP client source IP
> address (and optionally the source port) or the Unix uid of the process
Yea, I've seen that. My question is about some kind of postfix/etc logging level
or an utility (as I have
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:25:27PM -0400, Gerard wrote:
> I still am having a problem getting 'sender_dependent_relaying" to work.
>
> This is a snippet of the sender_relay file:
>
> gmail.com smtp:smtp.gmail.com:587
> yahoo.com smtp:smtp.plus.mail.yahoo.com:587
Well, this is transport(
On Saturday, June 13, 2009 at 04:25 CEST,
Gerard wrote:
> I still am having a problem getting 'sender_dependent_relaying" to work.
>
> This is a snippet of the sender_relay file:
>
> gmail.com smtp:smtp.gmail.com:587
> yahoo.com smtp:smtp.plus.mail.yahoo.com:587
As documented, @ex
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 01:09:49AM +0200, mouss wrote:
> by default:
>
> mime_header_checks = $header_checks
> nested_header_checks = $header_checks
>
> so header_checks apply to more than 822 headers.
>
> > I'm
> > not sure if this is a bug/'feature' - but to have to keep commenting out
> > ce
82 matches
Mail list logo
