On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM, David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Aecio F. Neto wrote: > > >> 1) A completely unknown option: In this case, I agree that Clam should > >> abort after writing errors to stderr and syslog. A completely unknown > >> option indicates a serious problem; the configuration file could never > >> have been valid. > > > Why? Ignore it and move to next one. > > I can't understand why an unknown option would prevent a service to > start. > > Because it indicates a configuration file that not only is invalid, > but was never valid. > > What if some poor user puts this in the ClamAV file: > > BlockAllZips yes > > and expects it to work? The principle of least surprise says ClamAV > should reject that. By the same token, the principle of least surprise > says that ClamAV should not break on previously-valid configuration files. > I don't agree with that, but let me put another option: 1) Break on unknown options 2) Ignore obsolete options and warn OP If any Op (or poor user) adds an option like PleaseClamAVCleanInfectedFilesForMe yes and expects it to work, are you really sure that the software should not ignore this? I see no difference from mine example to yours, because one should understand at minimum which options are availble before adding one he *thinks* exists. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
