https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7987
--- Comment #18 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> ---
(In reply to Michael Storz from comment #17)
> If that
> could happen the logic of the eval rule is too complex and should be changed.
A DNSBL can do this:
- It parses for example 4 IP addresses from Received
- For each of the IP it starts a separate bgsend_and_start_lookup, expecting 4
separate callbacks
Obviously if got_hit() is called, we know rule is ready regardless of any
pending lookups.
What things should the callback do if there is no hit?
Current logic:
sub callback {
rule_ready(thisrule)
foreach (answer) {
if (match) got_hit(thisrule)
}
}
Using got_miss() would probably be:
sub callback {
foreach (answer) {
if (match) got_hit(thisrule)
}
if (!tests_already_hit(thisrule) && !get_async_pending_rules(thisrule))
got_miss(thisrule)
}
I guess we could brind back the deprecated Dns/is_rule_complete function, which
can do the checks. So would this be the most elegant flow?
sub callback {
foreach (answer) {
if (match) got_hit(thisrule)
}
if (is_rule_complete(thisrule)) got_miss(thisrule)
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
