In message <3qpbvm2dkczh...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
>> If I have understood you correctly, you have said that for every kind/type
>> of ACTION specification listed in access(5) _other_ than REJECT & PREPEND
>> it is possible to combine that ACTION specification (and its asssociated
>> parameters?) with additional ACTION specifications.
>
>No, it is like this:
>
>Each access map lookup returns
>
>One line starting with the REJECT action and containing NO OTHER
>ACTIONS. Note that it says NO OTHER ACTIONS HERE, and I mean that.
>
>or
>
>One line starting with the PREPEND action and containing NO OTHER
>ACTIONS. Again, it says NO OTHER ACTIONS HERE, and I mean that.
>
>...
>
>or
>
>One line NOT starting with REJECT or PREPEND etc., containing OTHER
>ACTIONS (note plural) than REJECT or PREPEND etc.
Thanks again for responding Wietse.
Unfortunately, given that what you just said looks to me remarkably
identical to your prior response, I think that I'm still rather
entirely confused. (But maybe not.)
Let me see if I can couch what I _think_ you've just said into formal
syntatical terms, and then please do tell me if I've still got it wrong.
It sounds to me like you are saying that...
<lookup result> := <special action> |
(<other action> [,])* [<special action>]
<special action> := REJECT [text] |
PREPEND headername: headervalue
<other action> := OK |
all-numerical |
4NN text |
5NN text |
DEFER_IF_REJECT [text] |
DEFER_IF_PERMIT [text] |
<restriction> |
BCC user@domain |
DISCARD [text] |
DUNNO |
FILTER transport:destination |
HOLD [text] |
REDIRECT user@domain |
WARN [text]
<restriction> := {{the various documented restriction types}}
Is this in fact what you're saying, i.e. that REJECT | PREPEND can be
combined with one or more other actions (i.e. other than REJECT | PREPEND),
but when and if they are, then those two "special" action specifiers must
appear last on the line?
If I have misunderstood and/or botched the syntactic description of what
you were intending to say, then I will greatly appreciate a corrected
version of the actual acceptable syntax, because it is still rather
opaque to me. (That's neither your fault nor my fault. Verbal attempts
to describe syntax are just never as crisp and clear as good old BNF.)
Regards,
rfg
P.S. I've tried to use what I think is pretty much the same syntax notation
used in RFCs. Please excuse me if I have botched that. I hope my intended
meaning is clear anyway, even if the BNF I've written incorrectly describes
what Postfix actually allows.
