On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:57:53PM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote: > > well, at least to be able to use the same acl (rich) syntax in routers,
> > i.e !senders = : works on acl's but not in routers, also acl's accepts
> > more than one 'condition' and routers accept only one, etc ... Using
> > different rules often leads to confusion, by now i'm trying to figure how
> > to make a router decline for null envelope sender, my first tough was to
> > use !senders = : (like I do in acl's), but it does not work.
>
> I too would like to beable to use multiple conditions on routers.
> Specifying conditions and preconditions as such would be nice too.
>
> You can check for null senders
> senders = ! :
You know what I'd like to see on conditions? Looping.
condition = for i in {1 2 3 4 5} { match {$int_spam_score}{$i} {yes}{no} }
Nice :-) I could then actually use one router to scan for matches on
multiple headers, and reject/deny there, instead of having to run
through multiple routers.
If the first {1 2 3 4 5} could be looked up in a database or lsearch'd
a file, then I could even reduce the number of loops I have to pass my
message through (and thereby make it a more efficient process?), instead
of having to do a check against multiple routers.
