Milter-greylist

I fully agree with Umes point. For a default rule like this, its position in 
the conf file should not matter. Ideally, all whitelist information should be 
appended to the end of the file, rather than middle or elsewhere, as this is 
most likely to change. In our environment, we append our whitelist acls to 
the end of a template and rebuild the conf several times a day through 
automated means. Migrating to 3.0 where this rule exists (it doesnt live in 
202) would be impossible for us without significantly changing the way we do 
automatic updates to our conf file. I agree for anything else, black or grey, 
order is fine. But this default rule that has to go at the end? Just a bad 
idea imho. I can work on patching this out if others are interested, but I 
have no idea how quickly I could get it done due to my current work load.
 



On Thursday 14 September 2006 09:45 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:20:38 -0400
> >>>>> Matt Kettler <mkettler@...> said:
> >
> > I was just reading that, but in the default greylist.conf file the
> > "acl greylist default" was not at the bottom of the file.
>
> mkettler> Sounds like a bug in the default config for your release. Do you
> have 3.0a1? mkettler> That's the only version that I have that suffers from
> this bug, but my mkettler> collection is not comprehensive.
>
> mkettler> 3.0a2 and higher have correctly moved it to the bottom of the
> file.
>
> mkettler> 2.1.2-5 and 2.0.2 don't even have the word "default" in the file
> at all.
>
> I feel that `default' is not a good keyword then.  It sounds to me
> that the location in greylist.conf doesn't matter.  Something like
> `any' is better, IMHO.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
> ume@...  ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
> http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>