ctions?
(Wasn't that what people ment when they used OK?)
--
Henk van Oers
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
Quote from header_checks (5):
""
DUNNO Pretend that the input line did not match any pat-
tern, and inspect the next input line. This action
can be used to shorten the ta
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Henk van Oers wrote:
[]
I was trying to use action OK to jump out of header checks.
That is: not only skip the next patterns, but also the next
input lines.
[]
Isn't it bett
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Henk van Oers:
Quote from header_checks (5):
""
DUNNO Pretend that the input line did not match any pat-
tern, and inspect the next input line. This action
can be used to shorten the ta
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Is it so hard to read what the text actually says,
instead of what you want it to say?
Yes. The semantics differ from what i'm used too in recipient_checks.
Noel Jones wrote:
[...]
There is no bypass mechanism for header_checks.
It whould be nice to have one.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Henk van Oers:
Noel Jones wrote:
[...]
There is no bypass mechanism for header_checks.
It whould be nice to have one.
Just to clue you in, here is an example SMTP dialog.
220 server.example.com ESMTP
HELO client.example.com
250
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Henk van Oers:
I think OK can be used to skip not only the rest of the expressions
but also the rest of the header lines.
Sorry, that would break compatibility. Postfix is used for
serious work, not jusr toy systems.
Fine, not Ok than.
What
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Headers that you want to reject may appear before or
after headers that you want to whitelist.
Now i see, thank you.
I will write a header proxy that only collects the
headers, does some expressions with shortcuts
and starts streaming the 20+MB body
