Author: W B Hacker Date: To: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] Recipient verify only for non-authenticated users
Graeme Fowler wrote: > On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 10:06 +0000, W B Hacker wrote:
>> Surely you did not interpret any part of this to have implied that an
>> earlier-phase 'accept' was somehow infectious, parasitical, viral, or
>> ....wot? child-bearing? ... immortal, even?
>
> Er...
>
> You know what? I have no idea what you're on about.
>
> Yes, I misunderstood your post (for which I acknowledge the fact,
> apologise, and will immediately self-immolate with a thorn swatch). I
> was thrown by your insistence on demonstrating your extensive
> vocabulary ;-)
>
> Graeme
>
>
Sorry 'bout that...
But the thread began when the OP applied an all-inclusive 'deny class'
verb (require verify = ) inadvertently, then wondered why the session
had closed when an earlier condition in a mere 'warn' had been meant to
apply the test to only a subset of traffic.
Which problem DID find a resolution ... more than one..
