"Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > perhaps it could be staged. We could support it, but if we find an > > override, we could log it to the debug log as deprecated and not > > supported in versions after .70, or something like that. > > Remember that raising _any_ exception will trigger a deferral.
I wasn't thinking of throwing an exception. I would just write a log message, accept the override and do what it says. This would last for maybe two months, then the processing of the second column would be removed from the code altogether. Once the feature is removed, we'd still have to split the fields in text files, so that we don't compare addresses to the whole line, in case people don't clean up their files. In that case, maybe an exception would be a good idea. As a wider question, I wonder if there aren't cases where, instead of or in addition to logging and deferring, we should send mail to alert the user. Certain errors in configuration or the filter files cause exceptions for every piece of mail that comes in, so if you suddenly stop receiving mail after making a change, it's pretty obvious. You check your debug log. On the other hand, like in the situation above, only the occasional mail where the sender address matches a line with an override will be deferred and you won't know it unless you regularly check your mail queue. A mail message from TMDA when those sorts of errors happen might be extremely helpful. Just a thought. > Cold turkey baby, with a nod to UPGRADE. Throw caution to the wind, eh? Tim _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
