Re: [exim] Which verb to use for a sub-ACL preserving semant…

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Tony Finch
Datum:  
To: exim-users
Betreff: Re: [exim] Which verb to use for a sub-ACL preserving semanticsand flexibility?
On Thu, 26 May 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 13:43 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > to give the same behavior like an included ACL snippet, with all verbs
> > > in the sub-acl doing exactly the same as if they were called in the
> > > main ACL.
> >
> > I don't think there is a suitable choice for $VERB which results in
> > the desired behavior.
>
> Doesn't 'require' do it?


That doesn't propagate an accept up to the top level, though you may be
able to fix that using ACL variables.

Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}