Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wasn't thinking of throwing an exception. I would just write a > log message, accept the override and do what it says.
Where's the impetus to change then? Wouldn't it be easier for users to just reorganize their filters? As I said, I'd guess that very few even know about this feature, let alone are using it. > This would last for maybe two months, then the processing of the > second column would be removed from the code altogether. This assumes users are upgrading at every release, which I know they aren't. Heck, even you and Gre7g are still using a 4 month old TMDA release <wink>! > 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. I think the parser throwing an exception would be appropriate. > 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. How would a suitable address be determined? What happens if that mail fails/bounces? I'd also find this extremely annoying if I were the user. > Throw caution to the wind, eh? How so? The parser will throw an exception, deferring the message, causing the user to fix his configuration. No mail is lost. This of course assumes the user has ignored UPGRADE, it might be much easier. TMDA is still alpha and advertised as such, so I'm going to lose too much sleep over this one. Wait till they see `rm -rf ~/.tmda/pending' in UPGRADE after I restructure the pending queue <wink>. Anyway, the parser is your baby, so if you feel strongly about this, you might poll -users to see how many will actually be affected by this change. I'd bet dollars to donuts it isn't many, but stranger things have happened. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
