Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Now that I am aware of internal_networks I read through the documentation
> > carefully several times and I couldn't imagine a configuration where
> > splitting this was useful. If someone had an example of such to add to
> > the documentation
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:35:30PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Now that I am aware of internal_networks I read through the documentation
> > carefully several times and I couldn't imagine a configuration where
> > splitting this was useful. If someone had an example of such to add to
> > the do
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:35:30PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Hmm... I had never realized the difference between trusted_networks
> and internal_networks previously. I had always set the
> trusted_networks parameter and didn't even know about the
> internal_networks one. The TrustPath entry on t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Shouldn't that message trigger RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL?
> > trusted_networks 199.232.76.173
> only if 199.232.76.173 is in your internal_networks...
Hmm... I had never realized the difference between trusted_networks
and internal_networks previous
On 10.08.08 18:09, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I am trying to debug my trust path problem with this simplified
> message:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m48bf6057
>
> Basically the headers I am looking at are:
>
> Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52195 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
> by lists.g
I am trying to debug my trust path problem with this simplified
message:
http://pastebin.com/m48bf6057
Basically the headers I am looking at are:
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52195 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSITK-0001ms-HD
