Thanks to everybody who has commented so far. Useful and
thought-provoking comments.
I've received some other comments in personal mail from people who are
not on the exim-users list. A couple of their points are worth posting
for general discussion:
1. A radical suggestion for incoming policy controls is not to have
something like accept_recipient or an ACL list, but instead to add
facilities to the routers, so that "verifying" a recipient address does
all the checking, not just the delivery bit. I'm not at all sure about
this. I feel it may end up with "verify_only" routers that have all the
conditions on them. You might just as well keep these conditions away
from the delivery routers. Hmm. Maybe there should be a separate list of
routers for verification only?
2. Another suggestion pointed out that the distinction between the
different kinds of router option isn't very clear (some are
pre-conditions, some are post-conditions, some are data). A way of
making them clearer was requested. Another suggestion was that the order
of the conditions should matter (at present, order of options does not
matter). There was also a suggestion for a syntax such as:
router_name:
decline_unless condition = ...
defer_unless require_files = ...
fail_unless domains = ....
and so on, again with the order mattering. This is getting more radical
than I was contemplating.
Views?
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
