| Main Archive Page > Month Archives > postfix-users archives |
Re: more actions for *header_checks/body_checks
From: Solar Designer <solar_at_nospam>Date: Thu Nov 17 2011 - 01:47:49 GMT
To: Postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org>
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 08:02:03PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Solar Designer:
> > OK. I took a look at the code and I see those difficulties now. How
> > about something like the attached patch? It's totally untested other
> > than that it compiles, and it's probably wrong (especially considering
> > that it's the first time I am dealing with this code) - but I think it
> > illustrates what I am speaking about.
>
> It appears to disable body_checks
On purpose - after a match resulting in ACCEPT, that is. I admit that I
had my specific use case in mind, though.
> and perhaps Milters too.
Yes, it looks so. Instead of CLEANUP_FLAG_FILTER_ALL I think it should
use CLEANUP_FLAG_FILTER.
> This is
> not hard to fix. The idea of redirecting header callback to a NOOP
> is interesting (but this needs to be part of the per-message state,
> as it must not affect the next message).
DISCARD does the same thing with flags, so I assumed it was per-message.
No?
> I think it is not a problem to add an ACCEPT this message action
> now. You don't have to provide the whole solution.
Does this mean you're going to implement it? Sounds great if so. And
the default action feature, please - I'd use them together.
In my demo patch, I apply the default action in all not-ACCEPT cases,
but this will need to be restricted to have the default action applied
when no other action was found. Also, the default action name could be
checked against a list of reasonable ones (report an error to the
Postfix install admin if not).
Thanks,
Alexander