I noticed this morning that if an IP is whitelisted it also bypasses the connection limit.

IE, I limit 10 connections per ip, but if an ip is whitelisted it can have unlimited?

Is this meant to be like this?

My whole point here is in the configuration panel I have it set for max connections per ip set to 10.

Just because an ip is whitelisted doesn't mean it should be allowed to exceed the max allowed connections. I've had to whitelist some large isps in my area because of alot of the emails we recieve, so does this mean that they will exceed the max connections limit? That doesn't make any sense. Trusted or not, I only want 10 connections per ip. It's kind of defeating the rule....

I think Roberto means that large emails take time to finish, taking up more connections when concurrent mails are beeing sent by same source ip. Question is: which conn gets dropped when the limit is reached? the last one in, or the one that was open the longest.

If the longest open connection gets dropped then you'd have problems sending large attachments.

I was actually mistaken and talked about the wrong filter (max message size instead of the max connection limit). However the reply still stands. The whitelist will overwrite everything except the anti-virus filter. The reasoning is the same. Admins may have a connection limit set, but for example may not want to impose that limit to their secondary MX server, or their customer's SMTP server. In any case, if we were to impose the connection limit on whitelisted IPs as well, we'd always have customers who would then say "my whitelist is supposed to bypass all filters, why are certain filters not affected by it?"

Again, the only solution will be to have more flexibility in the filtering rules.

Since when is a connection limit a filter?

If this will be resolved in an upcoming release that will allow us to edit how our filters work I guess it's not big deal.