This is a discussion on Message-ID:Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=KX0lzpPotFHobSBAzkMpjQ7TKSUuMzMFM5SbOSHT+IscFfFZ O4DelarfY5r5/yZyUsOwB4wuiluls9QsMYMply29CQD3M4Ti4aKlIai/S0TStJW7uTLOeltTMWUr4JDbvsrnYDJyqKGfKX0HWm5FLep0Gc NYq9+ugFbLjBbF5N0= - SpamAssassin ; On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:38:22PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote: > Henrik K wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:22:08PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote: > >> Yes, I saw that in the code - still, ...
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:38:22PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:22:08PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Yes, I saw that in the code - still, having a
> >> whitelist_from_rcvdregex
> >> would be very useful, people relay via their providers quite a lot.
> >> I guess I'll have to write something up.
> > If the originator is static IP, add whole path to trusted_networks and
> > use ALL_TRUSTED.
> I prefer to use that only for our own networks. That I whitelist one
> domain from a certain server(s) doesn't mean I want to whitelist
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
whitelist_from_rcvd *@foobar.xyz 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
Perhaps it could even work with hostnames as long as they stay inside
And perhaps it could support basic wildcards instead of regexps.