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

[Russ Allbery]

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

> 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.

Okay, unless someone else thinks that's not the right way to go, let's
call that a tentative plan, to be added once the new parser lands in 2.5.

-- 
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.