On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:38:17PM -0400, Rupert Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 14:18, Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> wrote: > > > In effect, instead of having: > > accept from any for local deliver to mbox > > > > You will have: > > action "my_action" mbox > > match from any for local action "my_action" > > It may solve some obscure technical problem, but is a horrible thing to read > and write. How about keeping the best of both worlds? Leave the old beautiful > PF-like syntax to humans, and translate it into the newEgyptian(tm) on the > fly?
It doesn't solve "obscure" technical problems, it solves _many_ issues a lot of users have reported ranging from syntax ambiguity to envelopes on disk not reflecting changes in configuration. One-line rules have lot of consequences which go far beyond the configuration phase: the structures are impacted, the ruleset evaluation is impacted, the aliases expansions are impacted, the queue is impacted, format of envelopes are impacted, I could go on and on since this impacts almost the entire daemon actually. The impact is not just cosmethic stuff. I removed _hundreds_ of lines of very unnecessary and complex code that was ONLY there to make the design error work. Some of these removals led to concrete security improvements like .forward files, written by untrusted users, be processed with their privileges rather than _smtpd. Not doable with one-line rules. I could write pages about the shortcomings from the previous config, and pages about why it can't be made to work and why the new config fixes it in the proper way. We tried hard to find ways to retain a one-line rules configuration but after months we exhausted the ideas and we have a much clearer understanding that it's NOT doable. Either we accept that, or we are just going to grow more complex and slowly stop writing code because every time you touch an area there's a risk you run into the complexity. You don't have to trust my word: > How about keeping the best of both worlds? Leave the old beautiful PF-like > syntax to humans, > and translate it into the newEgyptian(tm) on the fly? If this was possible, then you could easily write a translator that will convert old grammar to new one without removing all the benefits and not reintroducing the complex code. By all means, show me, I'd be impressed for real. -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
