RE: [Exim] Feature Request - Multiple Conditions

Wakko Warner wrote:
>> I know you can do that and it's ugly. What I weant to additionally
>> do is:
>>
>> condition = condition1
>> condition = condition2

I'll second the want for this exact feature. I know you can pile all your
conditions into one statement, but depending how much you have to do, it
could end up being a very long string (could the 1024 char limit cause
problems here?). It also makes it a *real* pain when you want to have a
bunch of different type of conditions like some MySQL lookups here, then
some other stuff there, etc... I ran in to this exact issue when designing
my Vacation router - I wanted to prevent replies going to null senders,
etc... And also do a MySQL lookup. I had so many opening and closing {}
brackets that it took me like 10 tests to get it all right! Not to mention
as soon as I wanted to change something, I had to break it all apart again
and then put it back together and test a bunch more times. I've never had
that confusion with my other simpler condition statements because they avoid
me using and/or conditions.

> I thought about having 2 new conditions on the routers. Basically
> they'd call the ACL code to do the conditioning. A precondition one
> and a condition one. I just haven't bothered to see if it could
> easily be done.

As soon as you put a limit on the number of conditions you can do, people
will always say they want more (acl variables for example). It would be
nicer to just allow multiple condition statements just as you can in ACLs,
and just have them processed in the order they're read in (since all will
have to pass to have the router run, order shouldn't matter).

> I would think this would satisfy multiple conditions and actually
> remove options from routers that are already dupilcated in the ACLs.
>
> The acl would only support accept and deny. Obviously somethings
> like delay and control wouldn't be useful.

That could be an additional feature possibly - allow for an acl = statement
just as in ACL's themselves - allowing a router to call an ACL as a
condition... But would that provide any benefit over condition =, and would
it invoke additional confusion about "is this or that variable available
when running an ACL from a router"?

I think for now just allowing multiple (unlimited) condition = statements in
routers (and transports!) would be a great benefit, maybe not for the people
writing the code, but for the people who like simplicity in their config
files :)

Eli.