At 12:29 03/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>1. A radical suggestion for incoming policy controls is not to have
>something like accept_recipient or an ACL list, but instead to add
>facilities to the routers, so that "verifying" a recipient address does
>all the checking, not just the delivery bit. I'm not at all sure about
Now THIS is an intriguing thought. But isn't that what your current
settings in the top of the configuration are doing anyway?
An addition to the whole ACL bit... being able to define different sets of
ACLs like below:
acl local_route_acl begin
accept_recipient ...
accept_recipient ...
accept_recipient ...
acl end
acl trusted_net_acl begin
accept_recipient ...
accept_recipient ...
acl end
Or am I complicating things?
>making them clearer was requested. Another suggestion was that the order
>of the conditions should matter (at present, order of options does not
>matter). There was also a suggestion for a syntax such as:
That's what my feeling was at the ACL spec that John had suggested. If the
first condition doesn't fail AND the second doesn't fail AND the third
doesn't fail, accept the message.
>and so on, again with the order mattering. This is getting more radical
>than I was contemplating.
You opened yourself up to that :)
Regards
Andromeda
- The Andromeda HTML Workshop -
http://www.htmlworkshop.com/
Home of Search & Replace 98
