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 from: > > "foo" is defined more than once > overlapping ip declarations > "remote_ip" declaration in protocol "imap" conflicts with "remote_ip" > declaration in protocol "all"
It's not necessarily a broken configuration. For example you could have:
disable_plaintext_auth = yes # default also
remote_ip 192.168.0.0/16 {
# allow plaintext auth from intranet
disable_plaintext_auth = no
}
That's an ok configuration, right? But then again, maybe one of those
IPs is a proxy to outside world and you don't want plaintext auth from
there:
remote_ip 192.168.123.44 {
disable_plaintext_auth = yes
}
But I guess if there truly are some conflicts it could warn about
them .. although that might be more work than it's worth. :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
