On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 08:30 -0400, Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 10:20 +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:40:56 +0200
> > > > > > > Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefan@seekline.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Attached is a new policy for the dkim-filter application.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Chris, is the policy OK/ready for merge?
> 
> > Tested attached policy again on CentOS 5.3 with strict policy.
> 
> It looks ok.  However I'm starting to get concerned about the milter
> module getting big.  If you want, say the spamassassin milter, you add
> the milter module... but then you get rules for a several other milters
> too.

Attached is a milter version which behaves like the apache_template(). I
only took care of the dkim-milter but in general this would only mean
some reorganization of all modules ... nothing more. Any cons about
that?

If this would be the right way then we could also talk about the
milter_template() naming convention:

type $1_milter_t

The apache_template generates slightly different type names:

type httpd_$1_script_t

What about changing $1_milter_t to milter_$1_t?