On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Dave Evans wrote:
> The documentation for the ACL "decode" feature looks like it could do with
> improving. In places, it is listed as a modifier; in other places, it is
> listed as a condition (but nowhere, AFAICT, does it state what that condition
> actually returns).
You are right. I thought of it as a modifier, but I've just looked at
Tom's code, and it seems that if there is a decoding failure, it might
act like a condition. Are you there, Tom? What was your intention for
the behaviour of "decode"?
> From a quick glance at the source, it looks like it's actually a condition,
> and it fails if decoding is explicitly disabled (e.g. the RHS expands to "0");
> defers if, say, the disk filled up; or succeeds if decoding was requested, and
> was successful. Does that sound about right?
My reading of the documentation made me believe otherwise, but looking
at the code, I agree with you.
I'll wait for Tom's comments, and fix the doc for the next release.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
