Ron White wrote:
> As my ACL grows It has crossed my mind that for every acl stanza making
> use of a MySQL that fires off, there is the roundtrip cost of the query.
> Whilst some of the lookups can be optimised by ACL layout, I'm not going
> to be able to avoid some similar very similar queries when I check my
> database for certain flags being set on a per user basis.
>
> I spotted that there were a couple of sets of variables available to use
> in ACL's. The per session '$acl_c0-9' and (near enough 'per rcpt')
> $acl_m0-9
>
> Probably a simple question, but I can't find a relate-able example in
> the 'query-style lookups' chunk of my book. Would it be possible for me
> to have a single query that returned multiple results and assign each
> result to $acl_m0-> so I can look at them elsewhere in the ACL without
> the need to make a costly similar query?
>
> For example, I understand how this checks for a recipient:
> #************************************************
> #CHECK USER IS IN OUR LIST OF VALID RECIPIENTS
> #************************************************
> drop !recipients = ${lookup mysql{MYSQL_RCPT}}
> domains = +hosted_domains
> message = No such user
> log_message = user $local_part@$domain not defined in database
>
> .. but could I change the query:
> MYSQL_RCPT
> SELECT email FROM mailusers WHERE email='${quote_mysql:$local_part}@
> ${quote_mysql:$domain}'
>
> To something like this:
>
> SELECT email,usertype,inbound,outbound FROM mailusers WHERE
> email='${quote_mysql:$local_part}@${quote_mysql:$domain}';
>
> and actually access the other items? ($0-> ???). Would this break
> anything ? any pitfalls ? even possible ?
>
> Again, my thanks to anyone who has time to cast an eye over it.
>
>
Almost forget...
If using that 'drop' you illustrated above, either insure that 'postmaster@',
abuse@', et al are IN THE DB as well as on the system..
ELSE grant an exemption within - or skip-past/over before entering - that clause.
OR set a flag with a 'warn' instead of a deny or drop - THEN make a more complex
comparison and decision later...
Reason should be self-evident..
;-)
Bill
