| Main Archive Page > Month Archives > postfix-users archives |
Re: more actions for *header_checks/body_checks
From: Solar Designer <solar_at_nospam>Date: Wed Nov 16 2011 - 16:06:36 GMT
To: postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org>
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:36:21AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 8:32 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> > I'd like to have an ACCEPT action for *header_checks and body_checks.
> > This was requested before:
> >
> > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2005-02/1116.html
> >
> > I've read the replies in that thread, and I continue to think that
> > adding an ACCEPT action for *header_checks and body_checks is a good
>
> This is unlikely to happen. header_checks are intended for
> site-safe filtering.
I think that whitelisting of certain messages is site-safe. It does not
imply that all other messages are rejected (although that is a possible
configuration too and is a reasonable one for some sites/machines/VMs).
> If you need more fine-grained control, use eg. SpamAssassin.
I don't feel that whitelisting of PGP-encrypted messages is more
fine-grained than the kind of blacklisting currently supported in
header_checks and body_checks.
SpamAssassin in particular is too heavy for this trivial task and
machine (256 MB RAM, which is enough for this machine's purpose).
I simply want to define a fairly trivial policy on what's accepted and
what's rejected. The enhancements that I proposed would be sufficient.
> State, including what message the line belongs to, is not saved
> between lines.
>
> Adding any kind of whole-message action would require major changes
> to the way cleanup works, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I admit I'm not familiar with the code and I haven't tried to implement
ACCEPT yet, but aren't DISCARD and REJECT also whole-message actions?
Is ACCEPT somehow very different?
Thank you for your comments!
Alexander