On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 09:53:39PM +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:40:27PM +0200, Frank Brodbeck wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:16:59PM +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > it's still missing some <>. also i think we can wholly simplify the > > > auth/auth-optional line. > > > > Heh. Thought I found all, thanks for fixing the rest. > > > > > -.Op Ic auth | auth-optional | auth Ar authtable | Ic auth-optional Ar > > > authtable > > > +.Op Ic auth | auth-optional Aq Ar authtable > > > > the man page sates that: > > > > Both auth and auth-optional accept an optional table as a > > parameter. When provided, credentials are looked up in this > > table. > > > > but reading the new smtpd.conf(5) gives the impression that authtable is > > mandatory. I haven't checked the code but the following passes a check > > with smtpd -n > > > > listen on iwn0 tls auth > > listen on em0 tls auth-optional > > > > so it seems to be a valid syntax. > > > > it's why i added the word "optional" to the description. the syntax > [<table>] is really ugly, and is hard to understand.
Why is it ugly and hard to understand??? I think it's rather obvious that [] signifies optional and <> signifies the name of a table. > we could do it, but i don;t want to. sometimes it's better to sacrifice > being a million percent correct for clarity. Eh? How can giving incorrect information help clarity? That's a bit strange. -- Creamy! <3
