This is a discussion on Message-ID:Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=d7yTuaSUU3b5jgnavDV4pRV5unu0y0iEbWu3k/HbLo5sIfZQdCP5k3ZdAz4ziRsHzMmneQD59FhVtHkCi8feFcMa cR1VFQzYRq8VFUZiDA6RUIqgkXD6t8Ie7bDw/W2e7l9JqkStu2Y38sZ//W4iRcfG+2SUavn2t0N4a/LK1c4= - SpamAssassin ; 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 ...
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 *@foobar.xyz 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199
> Should this be read to mean "whitelist from foobar if it came via
> 188.8.131.52 AND 184.108.40.206"? That's an interesting option, but I can't see
> much immediate use. Maybe when I've thought about it for a bit.
> > 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..