
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
OK, Barry. I've come up with this patch (for the current CVS). If its OK, I want to start up for the release of 2.1.8a1.
The pass through of the 'hold' action if the message is to -owner seems right to me, but discarding instead of rejecting a 'reject' action if the message is to -owner seems wrong.
I think we should not change the disposition for a 'reject' action. The rule can be for lots of purposes, not just spam and if the owner has configured the rule to reject the message, I don't think we should discard it just because it is to -owner and not to the list.
I have one idea for 2.1.8a1 before we wrap it up. I'll address that in a separate post.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan