readers.conf proposal: (was Re: incoming.conf length limits)

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Hm, can we make this somewhat simpler by, say, adding a new key to the
> access group called "append:" that takes a boolean value and defaults to
> false?  If false, this access group overrides any previous matching access
> groups; if set to true, permissions granted are appended to those of any
> previous matching access group.

(Another possibility is "override: true" as the default.)


> For whatever reason, I can wrap my mind around that a bit easier than
> break/fallthru.

Because the fact the additional groups are being appended fits better with 
the additional list than the previous matching block.

I think they're isomorphic, anyway.  You're probably right about it making
more sense that way.  Also, doing that makes it easy to say "the following 
keys may not exist in any block that has append:" which is handy.



-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org