Just had another thought... the latest proposed ACL syntax has each line of
the form "action <sp> condition". Actions should include:
deny - deny the message (process no more rules)
accept - accept the message (process no more rules)
pass - accept the message (process remaining rules)
warn - add a warning header (usable on _any_ condition, not just RBL checks)
"pass" is the same as "non-deny", except it means the condition(s) don't to
be negated so it's clearer (to me, at least) what's being done. I'd rather
see:
pass 192.168.0.0/16 : 127.0.0.1 : @
than
deny ! 192.168.0.0/16 : ! 127.0.01 : ! @
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Hazel" <ph10@???>
To: "Andromeda" <andromeda@???>
Cc: "Exim" <exim-users@???>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Exim] Planning for Exim 4
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andromeda wrote:
>
> > I guess it makes your job harder in having to parse and optimize those
> > instructions, but looking at the syntax it is not that much more
difficult.
> > In that light I think it would be best if users of Exim (administrators)
> > were to list all ACCEPTs first, and then the DENY's?
>
> I don't think that works, because it doesn't give you full generality.
> You need to be able to process a list of ACCEPTs and DENYs in order.
>
> Has anybody spotted the bug in the example I posted yet? (Hint: its
> solution in ACL format relates to the above paragraph.)
>
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim
details at
http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
Shop Safely Online Without a Credit Card
http://www.rocketcash.com
