Emmanuel Fust?:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Le 18/09/2013 12:48, Wietse Venema a ?crit :
> > Wietse Venema:
> >> Emmanuel Fust?:
> >>> In an "access" table, could I use any postfix "reject_xxx" and
> >>> "permit_xxx" directive ?
> >>> I did not find it in the documentation. It could be very powerfull.
> >> It *is* documented.
> >>
> >> OTHER ACTIONS
> >> restriction...
> >> Apply the named UCE restriction(s) (permit,
> >> reject,
> >> reject_unauth_destination, and so on).
> > And, this is in fact the supported way to implement per-sender (or
> > per-client, per-recipient, etc.) access policies. You index the
> > table with the sender (or client, recipient, etc.) and specify
> > some policy on the right-hand side. You can use this in the
> > middle of a longer access list.
> >
> > Wietse
> Ok, got it, thank you.
> I think that it deserve more than just this paragraph.
> I was looking how to do better per sender access policy and completely
> overlook this paragraph !
> I'm sorry, all my apologies.
No need to apologize.
The problem is not a shortage of documentation (there even is a
separate document titled "Postfix Per-Client/User/etc. Access
Control" with examples of per-sender etc. policies).
The "problem" is that many Postfix mechanisms are designed to be
combined with other Postfix mechanisms. Unfortunateoly, is not
practical to describe in the manpage for feature X (for example,
access map) how it can be combined with other features A, B, and
so on (for example, permit_xx, reject_xx). That would greatly
expand the documentation, and even fewer people would read it.
Wietse
Wietse
