On 2017-01-18, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
>
> --===1145591294==
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s89yJNDe6fM6BJKb"
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
>
> --s89yJNDe6fM6BJKb
> Content-Type:
On 18/01/17 21:50, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Evgeniy Berdnikov (Mi 18 Jan 2017 21:56:49 CET):
> …
>>> - I'll start with: you don't want it at RCPT or earlier
>>> because that will impact sender-verify callbacks.
>>
>> Exactly. Session with "MAIL FROM: <>" may be a sender
On 18/01/17 20:56, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
>> And you'd prefer before all the data is transmitted
>> because that's a waste of bits and cpu.
>
> Right.
>
>> Any more?
>>
>> What should be preferred practice
>> when CHUNKING is used?
>
> With BDAT syntax we have to mix "pre-data"
Evgeniy Berdnikov (Mi 18 Jan 2017 21:56:49 CET):
…
> > - I'll start with: you don't want it at RCPT or earlier
> > because that will impact sender-verify callbacks.
>
> Exactly. Session with "MAIL FROM: <>" may be a sender verification
> callback, so in this case we want
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:32:44PM +, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 18/01/17 14:50, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote:
> >>> From: Heiko Schlittermann
> >>
> >>> Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL?
...
> >
l...@lena.kiev.ua (Mi 18 Jan 2017 15:07:01 CET):
> > From: Heiko Schlittermann
>
> > Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL?
> Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse.
Why can't you do this in RCPT on a per rcpt base?
--
Heiko
On 18/01/17 14:50, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote:
>>> From: Heiko Schlittermann
>>
>>> Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL?
>>
>> Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse.
>
> Greylisting of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:07:01PM +0200, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote:
> > From: Heiko Schlittermann
>
> > Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL?
>
> Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse.
Greylisting of messages from <> should be done on this stage.
> From: Heiko Schlittermann
> Just of curiosity: What use case do you have for your pre-data ACL?
Greylisting of all messages to postmaster and abuse.
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with
Jasen Betts (Mi 18 Jan 2017 05:06:38 CET):
..
> # run predata acl if haven't already. (eg: bdat)
> require
> acl = ${if!bool{$acl_m_need_predata_acl}{accept}{my_predata_acl}}
> # "!bool" above because spaces break it
>
> thus all my pre-data variables
On 2017-01-17, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 17/01/17 07:17, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> Is there a way to detect that chunking was used in the DATA acl?
>
> Look for "bdat", case-independently, in $smtp_command.
Actually I really want to know if my pre-data ACL has been missed, so
I'll
On 17/01/17 07:17, Jasen Betts wrote:
> Is there a way to detect that chunking was used in the DATA acl?
Look for "bdat", case-independently, in $smtp_command.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
On 2017-01-17, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 16/01/17 21:57, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote:
>> In Exim 4.88 documentation:
>
> It's in the main docs. The NewStuff entry only gives
> the bare-bones notification that the new feature has
> been introduced; if you are interested you are
On 16/01/17 21:57, l...@lena.kiev.ua wrote:
> In Exim 4.88 documentation:
>
>> If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the
>> acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run.
>
> Unexpected. Why?
> CHUNKING is advertised by default,
> for example Gmail issues BDAT commands.
To
l...@lena.kiev.ua (Mo 16 Jan 2017 22:57:19 CET):
> In Exim 4.88 documentation:
>
> > If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the
> > acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run.
>
> Unexpected. Why?
> CHUNKING is advertised by default,
> for example Gmail
In Exim 4.88 documentation:
> If CHUNKING was advertised and a BDAT command sequence is received, the
> acl_smtp_predata ACL is not run.
Unexpected. Why?
CHUNKING is advertised by default,
for example Gmail issues BDAT commands.
I think this at least deserves a mention in NewStuff.
--
## List
16 matches
Mail list logo