On Nov 1, ph10@??? (Philip Hazel) wrote:
> Question: Do you (collectively) think I should make an incompatible
> change to this? The new spec would be
>
> . If the string starts lsearch; (etc.) then do a check on the complete
> address. If you want the effect of *@ then you have to put something
> like
>
> sender_reject = *@lsearch;/thing/thing
>
> . Otherwise as now, where the lack of @ does a match only on the domain.
> Alternatively, the lack of @ could be diagnosed as a configuration
> error.
>
> Views, please! I would certainly like to make a change, because we could
> use this here.
I think this would be the best time to make this change if you do, as I
think very few people have these lists in files, so when they convert
to files, making a few changes shouldn't be that hard. I'm in favour of
as much flexibiliy in the reject and lookup rules as possible.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
