Solar Designer:
> 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.
ACCEPT in header_checks == turn off header checks for this message.
No Postfix table-driven feature has support for unmatched patterns;
No Postfix table-driven "yes/permit/accept" feature overrides other
table-driven features.
If you really want such things then I suggest using a Perl script
with Net::SMTP as a tiny content filter.
Wietse
