readers.conf -- is this possible
rra at stanford.edu
Tue Jun 27 03:53:05 UTC 2000
Todd Olson <tco2 at cornell.edu> writes:
>>> 2) make a new key in the existing access block, that
>>> adds to, rather than replaces the wildmats
>>> (will this work in the current readers.conf ??)
>> Of those, we're going to get #3 eventually, but #3 is the most
>> complicated for the local administrator since they're generally going
>> to have to write some code to use it. Of the rest, I like the idea of
>> #2, and yes, I think it should work even with the current parsing
>> infrastructure. It should be possible to make it work in the new
>> parsing infrastructure as well.
> Hum ... but I'm worried about #2 working.
> Suppose I have two access blocks for the a particular ID
> Does the current nnrpd
> a) evaluate the first access block and then evaluate the
> second access block, having it overwrite the first access
> block's settings?
> b) search for the last ID match (in this case the second access block)
> and evaluate just that?
Currently, it does the latter, so yes, in order for #2 to work, you'd have
to rearchitecture the way in which access groups are handled some. I
think that's doable, but you're right, it would require a good bit of
thought on the best way to do it.
> Any additional pointers you could give on this matter would be much
PERMgetpermissions in nnrpd/perm.c is the core of this code.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers