Philip Hazel wrote:
>>This does imply some build-up of cruft over time, but it's systematic
>>cruft rather than ad-hoc cruft.
>
>
> IMHO cruft is cruft is cruft... :-)
>
> Luckily, as I said in a previous message, I'm not yet convinced the
> feature is worth implementing at all. Since posting that message, I've
> found the original request. The sender wanted to be able to accept
> messages with responses such as
>
> 250 Accepted, SA score is 4.0, below threshold or 8.0
> or
> 250 This is confirmed spam, feeding to the bit bucket
>
> Who is going to read that?
Noone ;)
I think this request is/was bogus. And the feature is really not needed
at all. Noone is interested in the message that comes with a success
return code.
I could think of better/more-useful changes in the local_scan-api :)
