Milter-greylist

Michael Mansour <mic@...> wrote:

>        dkim   DKIM status (if build with DKIM support). Possible values are
> pass, fail, unknown, error, and none,
> 
> ie. "DKIM status", it doesn't actually say a ruleset like the above would
> work?

We told you nobody tested it :-)

Please try this patch:
--- conf_lex.l.orig     2010-02-28 14:53:05.000000000 +0100
+++ conf_lex.l  2010-02-28 14:53:07.000000000 +0100
@@ -240,8 +240,12 @@
 <S_SPF>{self}  { BEGIN(0); 
                  yylval.spf_status = MGSPF_SELF; return SPF_STATUS; }
 <S_SPF>{none}  { BEGIN(0); 
                  yylval.spf_status = MGSPF_NONE; return SPF_STATUS; }
+<S_DKIM>{self} { BEGIN(0); 
+                 yylval.spf_status = MGSPF_SELF; return SPF_STATUS; }
+<S_DKIM>{none} { BEGIN(0); 
+                 yylval.spf_status = MGSPF_NONE; return SPF_STATUS; }
 {quiet}                { return QUIET; }
 {testmode}     { return TESTMODE; }
 {verbose}      { return VERBOSE; }
 {dump_no_time_translation}     { return DUMP_NO_TIME_TRANSLATION; }


-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...