Gary wrote: >> > 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...
> Mark, are you saying you want to automatically assign all *lovers to > bypass*? Then how would you accomplish this?: > bypass lover > 0 1 useful, check but deliver tagged Am I correct to say that this also would no longer be possible?: @spam_lovers_maps = (1); @bypass_spam_checks_maps = ( [ qw( [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] .example2.com ) ],); I just not getting how this idea could work in all cases. Gary V ------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
