snowcrash+spamassassin wrote:
now, given John Rudd's comment of> ah, I didnt' know about notfirsthop. That addresses it completely. i still see no instance, % grep -rlni notfirsthop Updates/ %is notfirsthop *necessary*, or just the _right_way_ for that specific example?
Necessary for what? I don't see a specific example quoted. If you're referring to jm's post, I think he just made those rules up as they're not what we're publishing for 3.1.
-lastexternal is exactly what they're asking for. In the case where the client connects directly to their MSA which then connects directly to your MX, -lastexternal is functionally equivalent to -notfirsthop.
-lastexternal is almost definitely what you want to use for any dynamic client sort of list as it allows for people running their own MSA that has a dynamic-listed IP which then forwards to a smarthost which in turn connects to your MX. -notfirsthop would FP for this setup.
In any case, why the fuss? You've had three SA developers tell you the rules that are published are fine how they are. What exactly is it that you want to know, if not that the rules are correct?
Daryl
