Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-09-04 Thread Charles Marcus
On 9/3/2009 4:43 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> The difference between dovecot -n and postconf -n is that dovecot -n >> doesn't show settings that have been explicitly set to defaults. > doveconf -N now does that, while doveconf -n works like before. wow - Timo, you are amazing, no doubt about it.

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-09-03 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:57 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing > configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just > "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most > specific rule". I've now impleme

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-09-03 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 06:05 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 8/13/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote: > > The difference between dovecot -n and postconf -n is that dovecot -n > > doesn't show settings that have been explicitly set to defaults. > > Ahhh, I hadn't noticed that... > > So, shou

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-14 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/13/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote: > The difference between dovecot -n and postconf -n is that dovecot -n > doesn't show settings that have been explicitly set to defaults. Ahhh, I hadn't noticed that... So, should it? To me, it kind of makes sense for defaults to be displayed comme

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-13 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 07:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > I like that I can use postconf -d (show default settings - and this is > why I'd like to have a doveconf -d, as well as doveconf -n), to see if I > have specifically set any defaults, and if I did, delete/comment them. > This limits the set

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Edgar Fuß
I would suppose that partly overlapping rules are most often a sign of a configuration error. So how about 1) most specific rule wins (or last rule wins, forcing more specific rules to appear further down the file) 2) partly overlapping flag an error, except for 3) using != (or whatever) instead

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Steffen Kaiser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote: I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing IMO, "most specific" won't work as you pointed out several times, because Dovecot cannot know, which precendence the zillion configuration optio

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
> You are right, and I left out half of my thoughts. I think there should be > only a coarse grained concept of "more specific rules" - e.g. a protocol > section is more specific than general config, and a local or remote IP > restriction is more specific than a protocol section. I think that th

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH)
On Tuesday 11 August 2009 15:32:42 Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > > > 1) User logs in to imap from 192.168.0.1. What is foo's value? > > > > > > protocol imap { > > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 { > > > foo = foo > > > } > > > } > > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { > > > foo = bar > > > } > > > > Th

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
> > 1) User logs in to imap from 192.168.0.1. What is foo's value? > > > > protocol imap { > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 { > > foo = foo > > } > > } > > remote_ip 192.168.0.0/24 { > > foo = bar > > } > > This one is easy. It should be foo in any case :-) Why? /24 is more specific than /1

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/11/2009, Charles Marcus (cmar...@media-brokers.com) wrote: > Eh?? Not on my box. If I add a duplicate setting at the bottom, that > setting overrides any previous setting. In fact, this is one of the reasons postconf -n output is necessary when asking for help on the list... more than once I

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote: > (I'm also wondering about if it should be the first rule. Somehow to > me it comes more naturally that last settings always override > previous settings. For config files, I agree. > If we really want to make first settings come first, then the d

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Noel Butler (noel.but...@ausics.net) wrote: >> Can you give me some other examples than firewalls or routing? > Postfix, Eh?? Not on my box. If I add a duplicate setting at the bottom, that setting overrides any previous setting. -- Best regards, Charles

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Noel Butler (noel.but...@ausics.net) wrote: > I think first rule match is best approach, as someone else pointed out, > its how many things that most people here would work with daily work, be > it a server daemon configuration, iptables, or Cisco routers. The only > exceptions that I

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-11 Thread Rainer Frey
On Monday 10 August 2009 19:57:53 Timo Sirainen wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing > configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just > "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most > specific rule". I generally prefe

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Patrick Nagel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I completely agree with Michael's opinion. Patrick. On 2009-08-11 02:22, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Timo Sirainen wrote: >> I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing >> configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should alwa

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Noel Butler
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 19:28 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 09:20 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 17:59 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (I'm also wondering about if it should be the first rule. Somehow to me > > > > > > I think first rul

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 09:20 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 17:59 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > > > > (I'm also wondering about if it should be the first rule. Somehow to me > > > I think first rule match is best approach, as someone else pointed out, > its how many thing

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Noel Butler
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 17:59 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > (I'm also wondering about if it should be the first rule. Somehow to me I think first rule match is best approach, as someone else pointed out, its how many things that most people here would work with daily work, be it a server daemo

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:57 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing > configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just > "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most > specific rule". I think it's pos

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Felix Schueren
Daniel L. Miller wrote: > > > Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:09 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: >> >>> If at all possible, I would much rather see an error thrown than >>> choosing which one to accept. To me, having Dovecot tolerate broken >>> configurations is less desirable

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Charles Marcus (cmar...@media-brokers.com) wrote: > One thing I'd like is to sort the simple one line foo = bar settings > first (before the blocks) - in alphabetcial order. Of course, I meant with respect to doveconf -n output... or did you decide yet on the new command(s)? -- Be

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Michael Orlitzky (mich...@orlitzky.com) wrote: > It's easy to explain, easy to implement, and easy to debug. > Ultimately, the users are going to have to understand how it works in > order to configure Dovecot properly. "Put the most general rules > first, and then override them" is a

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Charles Marcus
On 8/10/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote: > Yeah, I'm beginning to think something like this would be good, with > perhaps some restrictions in how the configuration blocks could be used. > But is it better to use the first or the last match? For a filter (like a firewall), it makes sense t

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Daniel L. Miller
Timo Sirainen wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:09 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: If at all possible, I would much rather see an error thrown than choosing which one to accept. To me, having Dovecot tolerate broken configurations is less desirable than giving clear feedback for the user to

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:09 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote: > If at all possible, I would much rather see an error thrown than > choosing which one to accept. To me, having Dovecot tolerate broken > configurations is less desirable than giving clear feedback for the user > to fix it. Anything f

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Daniel L. Miller
Timo Sirainen wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:47 +0200, Felix Schueren wrote: make it protocols { imap { remote_ip x/16 { foo = foo } } all { remote_ip x/24 { foo = bar } } } That's just a syntax change. The question is still about if it should match

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:47 +0200, Felix Schueren wrote: > make it > protocols { > imap { > remote_ip x/16 { > foo = foo > } > } > all { > remote_ip x/24 { > foo = bar > } > } > } That's just a syntax change. The question is still about if it should match the fi

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0400, Joseph Yee wrote: > Hi Timo, > > What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense), > on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip? I'm not sure if there is one. > Sample 2 is tough, that's why I asked what's your thought on > precedence order. Restr

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Felix Schueren
Timo Sirainen wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing > configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just > "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most > specific rule". The "most specific" kind of makes more sense initiall

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Felix Schueren
Timo Sirainen wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing > configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just > "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most > specific rule". The "most specific" kind of makes more sense initiall

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Aria Stewart
On Aug 10, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most specific rule". The "most specific" kind

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Joseph Yee
Hi Timo, What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense), on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip? From your sample 1, it would read equals (to most technical people) to protocol imap { remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 { foo = foo } } protocol ALL

Re: [Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Michael Orlitzky
Timo Sirainen wrote: I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most specific rule". The "most specific" kind of makes more sense initially, but

[Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

2009-08-10 Thread Timo Sirainen
I'm trying to figure out how exactly v2.0 should be parsing configuration files. The most annoying part is if it should always just "use whatever comes first in config" or try some kind of a "use most specific rule". The "most specific" kind of makes more sense initially, but then you start wonderi