Ed Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip explanation of following table...] > An illustration of how that would work: > > tmda-address args sender allowed in? > ----------------- ------ ---------- > -s [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] no > -s foo.example.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] no > -s example.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] no > -s com [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes > [EMAIL PROTECTED] no > > Thoughts? Comments? Unless people don't like my alternate design, or > there's a problem with it I don't see, that's what I'm going to > submit: it's a lot less new code, and I don't think there are > backwards-compatibility issues, since I'm pretty sure it was useless > behavior before. I think it's fine. We sort of did the same thing with the -domains argument to certain filter rules: since a domain-only can't match a full address, there were no backwards compatibility issues, so the domains of all addresses to match are also included in the list of keys to match, obviating the need for a separate flag. Tim _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
