From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 12:05:00 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:49:25PM +0100, Luc Pardon wrote:

> What if I changed -nd to affect only whitelist failure and added -d
> for blacklists, so that it behaves like this:
>
> * blacklist lookup failure: default 'dunno', override with '-d'
> to return 'defer_if_permit' instead.
>
> * whitelist lookup failure: default 'defer_if_reject', override
> with '-nd' to return 'dunno' instead.
>
> Simple, but maybe too confusing? Thoughts?
>

Yes, this is the right approach, modulo careful choice of the switch
letters, and appropriate documentation.

The use of short (single "-") multi-letter (e.g. "nd") options is not
consistent with Unix option processing standards (getopt(3)) and is best
avoided. Short options should be single letter or digit, with support
for the usual shorthand: "-nd" == "-n -d". GNU-style long options should
use two leading "-" characters, e.g. "--no-defer".

I have no specific naming recommendations (which letters or long option
names to choose), other than the general advice to avoid inventing your
own conventions.

Finally, a scalable policy service should run as a listening daemon.
Per request fork/exec of a Perl script is too expensive for high volume
mail traffic (tens to hundreds of miliseconds of CPU per invocation).

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]