on 2/26/03 3:35 PM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 18:05, Kurt Bigler wrote: >> on 2/26/03 2:10 PM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] >> I would be concerned about any implicit prefix being removed from >> HTTP_HOST. It sounded like this was going to be done. > > Not removed from the environment variable itself, but from a temporary > variable > that contains the contents of HTTP_HOST. It's just wildcarding. I look for a > match > at the beginning, and remove it, then I look for a match at the end, then > remove > it. If nothing matches, nothing gets removed, and if nothing gets removed, > then > it doesn't fit the wildcard. Ok, I get it. I was confused by how you said it. >> >> There were some things that it struck me are much less orthogonal than they >> could have been, regarding handling name-versus-IP-based hosting. The >> previous approaches have so far been totally symmetrical. > > IP hosting doesn't need funky rewrite rules. It's simple and clean. You > specify > an IP, and you're done. If someone wants to write wildcard functionality for > IPs in the future, then they're welcome, but I plan to use vpopmail to handle > this. ( thus the *vpopmail modifier ) No I don't mean the wildcarding. I was thinking of how the allvirtual and vpopmail descritions read. But I guess I can take a little more time and take a look at that again, but this will be in a separate message. I'll try to get to it right away since you are in a hurry. [snip] >> Some of these options deal with setting environment variables. I seem to >> recal someone suggesting another environment variable need that I don't >> recall being addressed in the current set of options - but I'm not sure. >> Anyway what I'm getting at... now I have to start thinking out loud - so >> don't just anything until I finish because I think this is leading >> somewhere. This is a recap of my train of thoughts about this... >> >> So rather than having implicit environment variables, why not let people >> just give the name of the environment variable to be set. This would allow >> people to set variables in custom ways depending on the domain matching >> process. > > Yes, well, I AM in a hurry, so maybe everyone could do me a favor and be > greatful for the code I have provided and allow me to have my *vpopmail > modifier. I would really appreciate it, as would many other vpopmail people > I'm sure. > > The whole 'modifier' interface is modular enough for me right now. If someone > wants to write a new modifier in the future, they just add a new if statement > in my code and start writing. No big deal. It seems to me someone was just asking for a SQWEBMAIL_LOGIN_DOMAIN environment variable to be set? Or was it that you would look for such an environment variable having been set (e.g. by apache)? Or weren't there suggestions of both kinds? It is REALLY hard at this point to go back through all the emails. I seem to recall something else you said yes maybe to that would be easy - maybe I will stumble onto this again. [snip] >> Ok, this was pretty raw, but I have to go. I hope you haven't started >> implementing already! I hope some of these ideas might save some trouble. > > Uhhh... sounded like you were trying to convince me to write a programming > language for domain mapping. You call that saving me trouble?? No, the whole point of introducing the programming language was to indicate that it was both potentially "called for" and a desirable thing to avoid, and could be avoided via a "hook". And the hook does NOT have to be implemented now, and the potential for it can forstall even _thinking_ about adding new KINDS of complexity to the logindomainlist file. This is still worth remembering. I guess you are comfortable with this level of work, and you have set your limit (for today anyway :) so all is well. I still want to review the allvirtual and vpopmail options more closely. -Kurt > :) > > I know you meant well. > > Thanks for the comments, > > Jesse > > >> >> Thats all for now. >> >> -Kurt Bigler
