------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167 Phil Pennock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #14 from Phil Pennock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-14 00:03:48 --- (In reply to comment #13) > I notice that the "condition" ACL condition accepts numbers as boolean values, > while your patch doesn't. Yeah, I opted to accept the values which readconf interprets as bools, then in the comment wrote "condition =" (and didn't specify ACL vs Router). Okay, ACLs explicitly check for no/false/yes/true or if the value consists entirely of digits and if so, if non-zero. Routers use expand_check_condition(), which checks for the empty string, or "0", "no", "false"; those return FALSE, all other values are TRUE (and forced failures or search failures are also FALSE). This matches the documentation. Note then that "0000" is FALSE in an ACL condition but TRUE in a Router condition. So I think that the cleanest solution is to clarify in the comment that it's the ACL condition rules which apply and to accept numbers (which I had actually thought about, but decided against, doh). The way the code is written, abstracting this into a common function would add a complicated API and I think that this is simple enough that logic replication is reasonable. I'll add cross-reference comments to both places, though. Patch forthcoming. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
