On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:47:45PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Noel Jones: > [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] > > On 5/18/2016 3:46 PM, Sebastian Nielsen wrote: > > > It is actually possible to use multiple results when using the > > > built-in restriction commands (permit_sasl_authentication, > > > permit_mynetworks, reject, etc) > > > (Eg, words that can be used in the rules chain instead of > > > "check_sender_access") > > > > > > Then they will be inserted in the rule chain just where the > > > check_sender_access is, > > > Using processing commands like DISCARD can however only be used > > > in single. > > > > This is correct. Multiple "simple" actions are allowed in an > > access map result. (not sure where this is documented) > > In the access(5) manpage. > > ACCEPT ACTIONS > ... > REJECT ACTIONS > ... > OTHER ACTIONS > restriction... > Apply the named UCE restriction(s) (permit, > reject, reject_unauth_destination, and so on). > > Not quite sure what to change here.
Ah, that's clear, and sorry, I missed that. My confusion came from the RESTRICTION_CLASS_README, "... you can't specify a lookup table on the RHS ...", which I misremembered. Thanks Noel, Sebastian, and Wietse. While we're on the matter, however, is "UCE restriction" a proper term to use here? I'd suggest that "UCE" is never proper. Are these not more properly called just "restrictions"? -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
