On 2/27/2012 2:15 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 2/27/2012 1:12 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> On 2/26/2012 4:50 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: >> >>> A "warn_if_permit" similar to "warn_if_reject" might make more sense >>> and be more generic. I agree with your reasoning that the feature >>> would be useful. >>> >>> "warn_if_reject" negates the following restriction, and likewise >>> should "warn_if_permit". To actually use it as Stan describes, it >>> would be: >>> >>> smtpd_mumble_restrictions = [ ... ] >>> warn_if_permit permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org >>> permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org >>> [ ... ] >> >> I should have thought of that. Much better idea. > > And I should have thought more about this before replying. Would this > disable the permit action? We certainly don't want to disable the > permit action.
No, of course not. You perform the restriction twice; the warn_if_ is log-only, the second is live. You can do this now with warn_if_reject reject_rbl_client list.dnswl.org to log the hit. > > I think I prefer Wietse's implementation idea. > Yes, very useful general solution. I would use it. -- Noel Jones
