On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 14:50 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > tags #387078 - moreinfo > user [EMAIL PROTECTED] > usertags #387078 - close-20070228 > thanks > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:22:24PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > Yes, I think acl_local_whitelist would be clearer, if I understand > > what's going on! Then the man page could note that presence on the > > whitelist does not exempt a host from all checks or policy controls. > > > > To me, whitelist indicates accept unconditionally. Since that is not > > the intent (unless your proposal to add in use of the whitelist on > > some of the acl's makes it that way), perhaps another name would work > > better. Maybe acl_local_blacklist_exempt would be good to indicate > > the intent. If the scope is broader than blacklists, maybe > > acl_local_exempt, although that name doesn't mean much by itself, > > since it raises the question "exempt from what?" > > > > Another word that might be useful is "skip." > > How about acl_local_exceptions? or acl_local_deny_exceptions? Both are improvements, since they aren't actively misleading. They remain a bit cryptic, though acl_local_deny_exceptions does convey the semantics as I understand it. Is acl_local_blacklist_exceptions too narrow a name, i.e., does this setting affect more than the local blacklist?
Ross -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
