Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 10:06 +0000, W B Hacker wrote:
Surely you did not interpret any part of this to have implied that an
earlier-phase 'accept' was somehow infectious, parasitical, viral, or
....wot? child-bearing? ... immortal, even?
Er...
You know what? I have no idea what you're on about.
Yes, I misunderstood your post (for which I acknowledge the fact,
apologise, and will immediately self-immolate with a thorn swatch). I
was thrown by your insistence on demonstrating your extensive
vocabulary ;-)
Graeme
Sorry 'bout that...
But the thread began when the OP applied an all-inclusive 'deny class'
verb (require verify = ) inadvertently, then wondered why the session
had closed when an earlier condition in a mere 'warn' had been meant to
apply the test to only a subset of traffic.
Which problem DID find a resolution ... more than one..
QED
Bill
--
韓家標
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
