Re: Bug#224828: Split config file is worrying...
On Dec 23, 2003, at 16:46, Greg Folkert wrote:
Now, the "big file" you want with comments looks like:
/var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated
And, if you use: update-exim4.conf --keepcomments
It will look just like you want.
Yes, that makes something very similar to the way I like it. In fact,
its how I started building my monolithic exim4 config.
Yes, mainly because I cater to a higher degree of user/customer. One
that is a typically self service individual, one that has sudo rights
on
the machine that is shared by everyone...
Wow, you're lucky to have that class of clue in your customers! I envy
you :-)
users are real, MOST are DB Driven :), some of the mail is even stored
in the DB vs in Maildir.
Out of curiosity, which IMAP/POP servers can read mail from a db?
They won't (shouldn't) because they numbering scheme has already been
established.
As long as that numbering scheme is indeed fixed. It's quite possible
that I just missed that documentation.
That's the kind of thing that worries me.
As it should. Backup your configs... that is why you do it.
We can agree on that one!
Personally, I find it more able to transfer a setup similar to this
to
another machine.
scp /etc/exim4/exim4.conf root@new-machine:/etc/exim4/exim4.conf
doesn't seem to hard to me, but to each his own, I suppose.
If that was meant as an insult, it failed.
It wasn't intended as an insult at all. Just a note that I don't
understand why its easier to transfer the setup.
Also, allowing straight root
login is a bad thing, goes against Debian Policy on Default Security.
Debian ships ssh with root logins permitted by default.
Exactly how many message are you handling a day?
Not many, yet, on this server. The bottleneck is the cpu to run
spamassassin.
When Philip Hazel gets back from Australia in February/March, I will be
doing a wishlist for the Exim4 default config to be a modified version
of this. Maybe once it gets documented properly (not that Marc or
Andreas don;t do a good enough job) you be less opposed to it.
Having read your message, and thought about it more, it does sound like
a lot of my concerns are unfounded. Especially like, if you said, the
numbering is going to stay the same.
I hope no objection to the maintainer closing this bug if he wishes.
Also, I get the feeling, you haven't been supporting large scale
implementations of mail infrastructure long.
No, I've mainly done small to medium-scale ones.
Reply to: