On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:47:31AM -0400, Dean Brooks wrote:
> Remember that routers are also used to verify addresses. So, if you
> create an ACL that does:
>
> deny !verify = recipient
I have:
require verify = recipient
Which I think means much of the same thing - although I do have to confess
that a '!' in an ACL makes my head hurt; doing ACL checks *except* in
some situations confuses me. A group of us were talking about some potted examples
in the wiki a fortnight ago - some ACL ones would be good.
> Then you've accomplished the same thing while still using routers. I can't
> remember off the top of my head if you'll need a "fail_verify" on your
> catch-all (to tell the verify ACL statement to fail if the catch-all is
> executed). The :fail: may make it work correctly anyway, but if not,
> then you can add fail_verify to your schoolAdminFail router.
No -- it looks automatic. I've been looking at the docs, fail_verfiy is a kind of
inverse -- if the router accepts the address, then verification fails:
-------------------------------------------------------
-fail_verify-Use: routers-Type: boolean-Default: false-
-------------------------------------------------------
Setting this option has the effect of setting both fail_verify_sender and
fail_verify_recipient to the same value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-fail_verify_recipient-Use: routers-Type: boolean-Default: false-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If this option is true and an address is accepted by this router when verifying
a recipient, verification fails.
Regards
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256
http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information:
http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
Past chairman of UKUUG:
http://www.ukuug.org/
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
