In message <20141009163728.gt13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-us...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> In message <32139_1412843719_543648C7_32139_3580_1_543648C6.9050308@external >.th >> alesgroup.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?= <emmanuel.fuste@external >.thalesgroup.com> wrote: >> >> >Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit : >> > >> >Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access >> >table (or a table for each header to PREPEND)? >> >> If I was merely using access(5) tables, I would do so, however I am >> not using such tables in this instance. Rather, I am writing a >> policy server. > >Policy services are just fancy access tables. That's how they work >in restriction classes, which are just lists of things that all >look like access tables. Hummm... well now, your comment, together with the one made by Emmanuel Fust, are causing me to wonder if I may have been harboring a profound misunderstanding of access tables. What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5) man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/ precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table: domain.tld PREPEND X-Foo: bar domain.tld PREPEND X-Bar: for (This seems to be the exact kind of thing that Emmanuel Fust was suggesting that I try. However I have a dim recollection that long long ago I messed up some of my local blacklists in this exact way, i.e. by having multiple keys, each associated with different values, and when I tried to "compile" said lists, postmap complained... as seemed entirely reasonable... about the presence of duplicate keys.)
