Mark Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I implement this, I'm discovering that the problem with doing this > is that tmda-check-address does not know anything about ACTION_FAIL* > or ACTION_EXPIRED_DATED, all of which could be set to bounce. > Nor does "tmda-filter -M" know about ACTION_INCOMING. > > What I really need is a way to run tmda-filter such that it actually > goes through every possible scenario - just like it would if it > were really running - but instead of doing the action, it just > reports back what it would do. I don't think that this should be > too difficult to implement. > > In the mean time, I can certainly whip up something based on > "tmda-filter -M". It will help me verify the basic functionality > of what I'm trying to do. But ultimately, I think I'm going to > have to add an option to tmda-filter.
Yeah, tmda-filter -M was primarily a way to check for syntax errors and such in the filter file, not to simulate a real delivery. I will say though that I do not want to add any more checking code to tmda-filter, because that file is essentially byte-compiled and loaded every time an incoming message invokes it. The more code it has the slower that process will be, and 99% of TMDA users won't use '-M' or other such options. I'd much rather see tmda-check-address extended. Perhaps '-M' should even be moved there from tmda-filter. Can you dig it? _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([email protected]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
