On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 03:09:29PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote: > Henrik K wrote: > > > Then instead of asking for a lacking addition to a poor whitelisting > > method (in this case), we should enhance whitelist_from_rcvd to > > process received paths: > > > > whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.2.3.4 2.3.4.5 > > > > Should this be read to mean "whitelist from foobar if it came via > 1.2.3.4 AND 2.3.4.5"? That's an interesting option, but I can't see > much immediate use. Maybe when I've thought about it for a bit.
Yes. > > Perhaps it could even work with hostnames as long as they stay inside > > trusted_networks. > > I'm not sure I like the ideas of whitelisting based on IP-addresses, > it's too inflexible. Why would you not use hostnames? Hmm.. ok I think you both (mouss) are right. Ignore my last post. The trust would go from hostname to hostname, so it's ok. :) Too little time to think. > > And perhaps it could support basic wildcards instead of regexps. > > I appreciate Matts explanation about whitelist_from_rcvd being a regular > user option, so maybe the right way would be > a "whitelist_from_rcvdregex" ? IMO the right option is wildcards. You might as well ask then, why can't the sender part be regexed for convienence..
