On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:27:21AM -0400, Amelia A Lewis wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:15:00 +0300, Consus wrote: > > On 15:14 Fri 25 May, Gilles Chehade wrote: > >> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:58:59PM +0300, Consus wrote: > >>> On 14:31 Fri 25 May, Gilles Chehade wrote: > >>>> > >>>> you need an additonal rule such as: > >>>> > >>>> match auth from any sender <addresses> for any apply remote_users > >>>> > >>>> because: > >>>> > >>>>> #accept from local sender <addresses> for any relay > >>>> > >>>> no longer matches authenticated users > >>> > >>> Ain't it "action local_users" instead of "apply local_users"? The man > >>> page states "action". > >> > >> oopsie, yes, action, forget about apply, it doesn't exist, I should not > >> answer mail while talking on the phone :-) > > > > Frankly, I like apply better :( > > For what it's worth (this is *not* a democracy), I like apply better as > well. "action" to declare; "apply" to refer. There's then no > possibility that someone will attempt to create an action "inline" in a > match directive; the syntax of reference is 'keyword barename' while > the syntax of declaration is 'keyword uniquename activities'. Different > keywords makes it unambiguous for humans; can't use declaration syntax > where reference keyword is used. > > I looked at your tests, Gilles, and was hopeful because they all use > 'apply'. I found that easier to understand. However ... chances are, if > the tests were created early, that others have already argued in favor > of using the same keyword for declarations and references. >
indeed, but at least your mail made me update the tests :-) thanks! -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
