On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:12:15AM +0200, Axel Luttgens wrote:
> I mean, this could be a hint to tweak the algorithm so as to implicitely make
> use of a "DUNNO" condition;
There no such thing as a "DUNNO" condition. That's an access
keyword in access(5) maps that short-circuits searches for
less-specific keys. There is no generally applicable DUNNO.
> something like:
>
> for each table
> sender address not found
> continue
> sender address found
> owner matches
> return OK
> else
> return DUNNO
> return REJECT
The table in question is not an access table, it returns a list of
logins. There could a login named "DUNNO". Furthermore, you're
forgetting the outer loop with the full address, and then various
partial address forms like the address without its extension, ...
> Otherwise, the only unambiguous case for having
>
> smtpd_sender_login_maps <map1>, <map2>, […]
>
> is when all of the involved maps are disjoint ones (no common sender
> addresses), since ordering of <map1>, <map2>, [��] would then have no
> meaning.
There's no "ambiguity" table order matters, first match wins. The
first table overrides the second table, ... Except that partial
keys can make that complicated, if the second table can match
partial keys for which only the full key appears in the first table.
--
Viktor.
