Re: "Local whitelist" for the next restriction possible?

Noel Jones:
> At 03:07 PM 6/15/04, Victor.Duchovni@MorganStanley.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Noel Jones wrote:
> >
> > > The only catch I can think of is the feature would, of course, have to
> > > distinguish between a DUNNO result and a real "not found" and only return
> > > the default result when the key is really not found.
> > >
> >
> >This already works. DUNNO is internally implemented separately from "not
> >found" so it is possible to have a "found" DUNNO in addition to a not
> >found "DUNNO".
>
> Cool. I'll take a stab at docs if someone else can do the code.
> Maybe a better question is if Wietse would be inclined to include such a
> feature.

Not necessarily with the proposed syntax.

Is there a reason why this cannot be a configuration parameter that
specifies a lookup string, like we already have for looking up the
null sender/recipient address?

How should this interact when I add separate check_client_name_access
and check_client_address_access features?

How will this interact with future extension when the user can
specify the lookup order of domains, parent domain, user@domain,
user@, domain, and full/partial network addresses?

Wietse