Eric W. Bates wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > > ... > >>>>>>No, it could fire on *ANY* external IP that isn't the first hop. >>>> >>>>I don't think I was clear. I don't question that any IP in the chain >>>>might cause the difficuly. I was questioning why, if 127.0.0.1 is the >>>>problem, why it was reported as 68.64.105.61 in the rule. >>> >>> >>>Because 127.0.0.1 doesn't match the rule. However, the lack of trust in >>>127.0.0.1 is causing 68.64.105.61 to be treated as external. >>> >>>RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL can only match external hosts that are not the first hop. >>> > > > I appreciate your patience in helping me get this straight. > > It sounds as tho having amavis STOP adding the extra recieved header in > the message may address the problem? > > >>>>Also, adding 127.0.0.1 to trusted_network will, in fact, cause ALL >>>>inbound mail to be trusted, would it not? >>>
Is the whole trusted_net, dnsbl business written up somewhere? I would rather not waste your time; but searching the wiki doesn't turn anything up.
