Mailing List Archive

yeah, it's really a shame exim didn't like lsearch;/etc/mail/ip_allow on
the relay for by IP line. It'd be much easier to have that in a
line-by-line file than a long string. Oh well. Perhaps a feature
request, or does 4.0 allow it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: exim-users-admin@exim.org
> [mailto:exim-users-admin@exim.org] On Behalf Of Marc MERLIN
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Subject: [Exim] trusted_users fixed string?
>
> Just making sure I understand:
> trusted_users = mail:/etc/mail/trusted_users
> isn't legal and neither is
> trusted_users = mail:lsearch;/etc/mail/trusted_users

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Cory Daehn wrote:

> yeah, it's really a shame exim didn't like lsearch;/etc/mail/ip_allow on
> the relay for by IP line. It'd be much easier to have that in a

now that's news for me.

--
[-]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:

> Just making sure I understand:
> trusted_users = mail:/etc/mail/trusted_users
> isn't legal and neither is
> trusted_users = mail:lsearch;/etc/mail/trusted_users
>
> Correct?

Correct.

> If so, it's an RFE :-)

Noted.

--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:

> Just making sure I understand:
> trusted_users = mail:/etc/mail/trusted_users
> isn't legal and neither is
> trusted_users = mail:lsearch;/etc/mail/trusted_users
>
> Correct?

Correct.

> If so, it's an RFE :-)

What you could use (in Exim 4) is

.include "/etc/trusted/users"

if you want the list to be in a separate file.

Exim does the check for a trusted user really early on in its execution,
_not_ every time it needs to know if it has been called by a trusted
user. So there's not much in the way of expansion that might be useful.
However, I suppose I could make it into a local part list so that you
could use a lookup on it. I never expected it to be more than a list of
2 or three names....

Added to the Wish List.

--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:16:32AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > If so, it's an RFE :-)
>
> What you could use (in Exim 4) is
>
> .include "/etc/trusted/users"
>
> if you want the list to be in a separate file.

I keep forgetting about that, yes, it'd work, thanks.

> Exim does the check for a trusted user really early on in its execution,
> _not_ every time it needs to know if it has been called by a trusted
> user. So there's not much in the way of expansion that might be useful.
> However, I suppose I could make it into a local part list so that you
> could use a lookup on it. I never expected it to be more than a list of
> 2 or three names....

There could be a few reasons for this to be dynamic, but I'm trying to build
an exim4 debian package that most people can use, and write an exim4.conf
that has all the options most people would need.
The idea is that people wouldn't have to modify that exim4.conf in most
configuration.
That's why I'm trying to load things like primary_hostname and trusted_users
from files (BTW trusted users is often stored in a file on sendmail).

> Added to the Wish List.

Thanks.
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key

At 8:29 -0700 6/27/2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:16:32AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
>> > If so, it's an RFE :-)
>>
>> What you could use (in Exim 4) is
>>
>> .include "/etc/trusted/users"
>>
>> if you want the list to be in a separate file.
>
>I keep forgetting about that, yes, it'd work, thanks.

Am I correct in thinking that a file included with .include would require a
HUP of the daemon after being changed (just like a change to the
configuration file proper)? I get that idea by implication from spec
section 6.3.

If so, it's a likely source of confusion, since we've learned that "you
don't have to HUP after changing a file mentioned in the configuration
file...they're read when needed."

It's probably worthy of explicit mention in the spec if true.

--John


--
John Baxter jwblist@olympus.net Port Ludlow, WA, USA

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, John W Baxter wrote:

> Am I correct in thinking that a file included with .include would require a
> HUP of the daemon after being changed (just like a change to the
> configuration file proper)? I get that idea by implication from spec
> section 6.3.

Yes, you are correct.

> If so, it's a likely source of confusion, since we've learned that "you
> don't have to HUP after changing a file mentioned in the configuration
> file...they're read when needed."
>
> It's probably worthy of explicit mention in the spec if true.

Absolutely! Thank you.

--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.