Solar Designer:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:48:34AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > ACCEPT is simply to explain only if it disables all further checks.
> > Things become messy otherwise.
>
> Maybe we should call it other than ACCEPT, then - to make it clear that
> other restrictions elsewhere may still reject the message? Would that
> be simple enough to explain if we pick a proper name and description in
> the man page? I think so.
>
> Some names to consider: PERMIT, BYPASS, DONE, STOP, EXIT.
>
> I think that PERMIT more clearly indicates that we're talking about
> permission from this specific check, not acceptance of the message.
>
> In a sense, I need a DUNNO2, but that's probably not a good name.
I think that the first hurdle is to come up with a model that people
on the list can understand, including those whose first language
skills are much better than their English skills.
I must confess that I no longer understand what the purpose is of
ACCEPT in header_checks, if the purpose is other than skipping
all further lookups of all header_checks tables.
An ACCEPT in header_checks can't extend beyond header_checks's
jurisdiction, just like a permit in smtpd_client_restrictions has
no jurisdiction over smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions.
Wietse
