On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 22:06 -0400, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2011-10-14 at 16:26 +0100, John Horne wrote: > > Whilst the use of EXPAND_LISTMATCH_RHS is tempting, I feel that if we > > enable it then we should make the effort to see if there is some > > mechanism the developers could provide to make things easier for us. > > Yours looks like a reasonable case for EXPAND_LISTMATCH_RHS. You are > using the conditions safely. > > Moving forward: how far can you get using a named list, which references > the variables you're interested in? > As far as I can tell this would work. However, we use various match_* calls with differing variables. As such each named list, of different types, would probably be used only once (so no caching benefit). I see no real advantage (as opposed to using an in-line configuration), in our case, other than perhaps the config being a bit more readable.
> > I've been toying with the idea that Exim needs named parameterised > lookups. Notably, in 60 years of programming language development, this > idea has been stumbled upon before and has been given a catchy name. > "Functions". > Well that would certainly be useful :-) However, I'm thinking that in our case we may be able to avoid using EXPAND_LISTMATCH_RHS by using an 'acl' call. By using fixed variables (either acl_m_ or acl_c_) so that the first contains the item to be checked, and the second is the list, we can then push all the ugly config bits into the acl. Possibly a third parameter to indicate if wildcards are allowed. Again, I see no reason why this shouldn't work. John. -- John Horne Tel: +44 (0)1752 587287 Plymouth University, UK Fax: +44 (0)1752 587001 -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
