Wietse Venema:
> Erik Logtenberg:
> >
> > >> However in the case where the whitelist is (completely) unavailable for
> > >> some period of time, I still think that my suggestion applies, don't you
> > >> agree?
> > >
> > > No. It is assumed that you use a sufficiently reliable DNSWL. Ideally
> > > a local mirror, and if it becomes unavailable you use appropriate
> > > administrative intervention.
> >
> > Lol...
> >
> > My statement is:
> > "A implies B"
> >
> > and you respond with: No, because:
> > "not A"
> >
> > Logically, even if "not A" is the case, then still you haven't denied
> > the given implication. In fact in the strictest sense you even affirmed
> > it, because "not A" implies "A implies B", since false implies everything.
>
> It is a mistake to REJECT mail because a DNS whitelist server is down.
> Instead, the safe action is DEFER_IF_PERMIT.
Argh. DEFER_IF_REJECT (we must not reject this mail because we don't know
if it should have been whitelisted).
Wietse
