in my pfx v3.10.7 config, i've

        recipient_bcc_maps = ${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps.pcre

that's always in place, and works as intended

on occassion, i'd like to add ADDITIONAL, temporary maps.

i can, of course, e.g.

        recipient_bcc_maps = ${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps.pcre, 
${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps_FORENSIC, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps_FORENSIC.pcre

or, make temporary changes/additions to the

        /recipient_bcc_maps
        /recipient_bcc_maps.pcre

files themselves.
        
i'd LIKE the convenience to use a 'shorthand'; in principle, to do

        recipient_bcc_maps = ${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps.pcre
+       recipient_bcc_maps = ${recipient_bcc_maps}, 
${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps_FORENSIC, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps_FORENSIC.pcre

but, that config returns on pfx launch

        postfix: warning: /etc/postfix/main.cf, line 655: overriding earlier 
entry: recipient_bcc_maps=${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps.pcre
        /opt/postfix/sbin/postconf: warning: /etc/postfix/main.cf, line 655: 
overriding earlier entry: 
recipient_bcc_maps=${def_db_type}:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps, 
pcre:${cfg_dir}/recipient_bcc_maps.pcre
        /opt/postfix/sbin/postconf: warning: unreasonable macro call nesting: 
"recipient_bcc_maps"
        /opt/postfix/sbin/postconf: warning: unreasonable macro call nesting: ", 
"
        /opt/postfix/sbin/postconf: warning: unreasonable macro call nesting: ", 
"
        /opt/postfix/sbin/postconf: warning: unreasonable macro call nesting: ", 
"
        ...

man page tells me both

 • A parameter value may refer to other parameters.
 • When the same parameter is defined multiple times, only the last instance is 
remembered.

is there a similar/convenient "add these values to the maps list" method i've 
missed?  or correction needed here?
or are we relegated to the non-shorthand?

i _suspect_ the descriptions under the "may refer to other parameters ..." 
might well address this, but i'm not wrapping my head around the usage, yet :-/

_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to