------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=837
Nigel Metheringham <nigel@???> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock <pdp@???> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pdp@???
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock <pdp@???> 2010-06-06 04:08:32 ---
With external inclusions and fragments, it's already possible to create very
confusing configurations. This feature would make it even harder to read and
determine what various file fragments do and what the effect is.
As I see it, this would only help if there are, for some cases, two different
definitions which might be included.
I strongly recommend that in such a case the decision be made deterministically
by a build script, which can spew warnings and provide one solid fixed
configuration for deployment. Anything else would just lead to a running MTA
where you can't determine what's actually happening, as all the log statements
would just give a name for the transport/whatever, and those names would no
longer be sufficient to diagnose what configuration is in use.
I'm going to close the bug as WONTFIX at this time. If you can provide a
compelling argument for why such a facility is needed, please do re-open, but
absent such argument I would argue against implementing this.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
