Dean Brooks wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Philip Hazel wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Phil Chambers wrote: > > > > > If there is no such variable I will have to use one of the $acl_cx > > > variables to > > > do my own counting. Since there only 10 such variables it would be nice > > > not to > > > have to use one for this. > > > > Why not? This is exactly the kind of function for which they were > > invented. > > I think maybe his point was that because there are so few variables, > he didn't want to waste one on that function. > > I too wish there were at least 100 or maybe even 1000 variables > available for use instead of just 10. In large configurations, its > easy to hit the limit of 10 very quickly.
I'd prefer named acl variables akin to the *lists. It could be dynamically allocated and sorted for lookup speed. It might break something, but I wouldn't know what that would be. In my installations, it wouldn't break anything. -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals Got Gas??? -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
