>[snip]
>Well you don't see the issue for your use-case, the issue is that
>for pretty much every other use-case this is not what's desired.
My argument would be that if you don't want that behaviour then you
shouldn't use the modifier, however ...
>We discussed shortly a new kind of rules with e
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:40:29AM +, John Cox wrote:
> Hi
>
> >> Is there any chance we could have a rule of the form
> >>
> >> accept for any virtual no-bounce relay
> >>
> >> such that if the virtual lookup fails then processing continues to the
> >> next line rather than generating a
Hi
>> Is there any chance we could have a rule of the form
>>
>> accept for any virtual no-bounce relay
>>
>> such that if the virtual lookup fails then processing continues to the
>> next line rather than generating a bounce message. This would
>> simplify the generation of forwarding table
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:38:53AM +, John Cox wrote:
> Hi
>
Hi,
> Is there any chance we could have a rule of the form
>
> accept for any virtual no-bounce relay
>
> such that if the virtual lookup fails then processing continues to the
> next line rather than generating a bounce mess
Hi
Is there any chance we could have a rule of the form
accept for any virtual no-bounce relay
such that if the virtual lookup fails then processing continues to the
next line rather than generating a bounce message. This would
simplify the generation of forwarding tables.
Maybe
accept f
