access: in readers.conf

[Russ Allbery]

Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:

> I don't either, except that if it would be an actual benefit to people,
> it seems a shame to make them wait (how long are we predicting until
> 2.5?).

True, it'll probably be at least a year.

> Oh, certainly not.  I don't care about the bug (except for the general
> icky feeling that known-but-not-being-fixed have), but there are a few
> recurrent issues from access: that would also go away.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Well, the newnews one is already weird, since allownewnews is already an
inn.conf parameter and a readers.conf parameter in its own right, but
access overrides it.

Adding allowapprove as an inn.conf and readers.conf parameter makes a ton
of sense.  So does allowihave.  (Or allownnrpdihave, maybe?  The other is
a bit confusing.)  L doesn't make any sense as an inn.conf parameter,
though, since if you want everyone to be able to post to groups marked no
local posting, why mark them that way at all?

I wonder if we could get away with leaving access there, so that people
don't have to change their existing configuration, documenting the order
constraint, but deprecating it even more in favor of the above new
parameters that we've added.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.