At 10:33 +0100 4/13/2002, Philip Hazel wrote:
>I'm afraid it doesn't seem very reasonable to me, because it would be so
>very limited. Only unmodified names (i.e. nothing that involved a change
>of name via an expansion), and only in the main part of the
>configuration, and only when running as the user who called Exim (-C
>discards privilege). The best it could do would be to output "xxx does
>not exist" for files it couldn't find - but there are configurations
>where files don't exist all the time, and Exim in fact makes use of this
>fact.
>
>I fear that this would cause more confusion that it would dispel.
Given what you say about what you can make work, I agree with you.
At 10:33 +0100 4/13/2002, Philip Hazel wrote:
>There is too much logic involved in the use of various files to build a
>test that isn't "the real thing". Of course, there are some better tests
>than -bV, which really is just a syntax check. You can use -bt and -bh
>to test quite a lot, and there is also -N.
Well, it's the syntax that I tend to mess up. In routers (and directors
when in 3.x) and transports. But I'll work with -bt and -bh to test the
areas I've modified, when I can. Thanks.
And you've caused me to refresh my memory about -N. Thanks again!
--John
--
John Baxter jwblist@??? Port Ludlow, WA, USA
