whitelist_return_path

[ji...@jidanni.org]

Gentlemen, I wish there was a
whitelist_from *+*@facebookmail.com
rule that would use the Return-Path field,

$ egrep '^(From|Return-Path):' a b
a:Return-Path: <no...@facebookmail.com>
a:From: Facebook <no...@facebookmail.com>
b:Return-Path: <ch...@hotmail.com>
b:From: Facebook <up...@facebookmail.com>

as that is much more reliable.

I see there are other whitelist_ rules, but none that can use what is
already staring one in the face in the headers, and does not need to go
on the network to work.

Re: whitelist_return_path

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

On man 20 dec 2010 05:31:40 CET,  wrote

> Gentlemen, I wish there was a
> whitelist_from *+*@facebookmail.com
> rule that would use the Return-Path field,
>
> $ egrep '^(From|Return-Path):' a b
> a:Return-Path: <no...@facebookmail.com>
> a:From: Facebook <no...@facebookmail.com>
> b:Return-Path: <ch...@hotmail.com>
> b:From: Facebook <up...@facebookmail.com>
>
> as that is much more reliable.
>
> I see there are other whitelist_ rules, but none that can use what is
> already staring one in the face in the headers, and does not need to go
> on the network to work.
>

whitelist_from_dkim *@facebookmail.com

only spf need return-path if using postfix as mta


-- 
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Re: whitelist_return_path

[Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>]

On 12/19/2010 11:31 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
> Gentlemen, I wish there was a
> whitelist_from *+*@facebookmail.com
> rule that would use the Return-Path field,
>
> $ egrep '^(From|Return-Path):' a b
> a:Return-Path: <no...@facebookmail.com>
> a:From: Facebook <no...@facebookmail.com>
> b:Return-Path: <ch...@hotmail.com>
> b:From: Facebook <up...@facebookmail.com>
>
> as that is much more reliable.
>
> I see there are other whitelist_ rules, but none that can use what is
> already staring one in the face in the headers, and does not need to go
> on the network to work.
>
Hmm, from what I though whitelist_from *SHOULD* match Return-Path:
headers, provided they are present in the message at the time it is
scanned.

However, looking at all_from_addrs.. that doesn't appear to be the case.

This seems to be inconsistent with metadata/Received.pm, which looks to
be translating Received: header embedded Return-Path's in to a From:
meta-data.

Anyone recall while we're taking one kind of Return-Path, but not the
other (or am I just missing where the transform happens?)