Hi Mark, On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Mark Martinec told us: > If I knew how much confusion the semantics of bypass_* vs. *_lovers > is causing, I would have provide only _lovers, and derive bypass_ > automatically from it. Perhaps some day...
what if on a big mail server hosting many users some don't want spam checking at all, but some want spam checking but no action taken based on the result of spam checking, and some others don't want to receive mails which are definitely spam (e.g. the spam score is over a certain threshold)?? I think this is where the differentiation between bypass_* and *_lovers comes in very handy, or is there another way of doing this?? Sven > Mark -- Linux zion.homelinux.com 2.6.12-1.1398_FC4 #1 Fri Jul 15 00:52:32 EDT 2005 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux 11:45:42 up 12:59, 1 user, load average: 0.13, 0.04, 0.01 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
