(maybe) Fixes a typo in the rspamd docs

[reind33r]

Currently, to add rspamd, the docs suggest to

add rspamd check with default configuration into appropriate check block (probably in local_routing):

checks {
   ...
   rspamd
}```

Adding this block in local_routing results in a failure to start, because in this context only check is valid.

(I see that checks exist at top-level, but if we mention local_routing and appropriate check block, it makes more sense to me that the code block is also check)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.65%. Comparing base (798c411) to head (bb2c0c9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #682      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   52.68%   52.65%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         129      129              
  Lines       13369    13369              
==========================================
- Hits         7043     7039       -4     
- Misses       5660     5663       +3     
- Partials      666      667       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	34.36% <ø> (+0.09%)	⬆️
unit	52.16% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[foxcpp]

It is indeed a typo.

checks and modifiers are names of group modules that allow defining reusable configurations for check and modify directives correspondingly:

checks inbound_filters {
        dkim
}

modifiers inbound_mutation {
        replace_rcpt regexp "asd" "asd"
}

smtp tcp://127.0.0.1:2525 {
        check &inbound_filters
        modify &inbound_mutation
        reject
}

[foxcpp]

Thanks!