Pkg exim4 users - Aug 2012 - Does /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt have redundant lines?

$ sed -n ''178,180p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
      require
        message = relay not permitted
        domains = +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
    $ sed -n ''185,186p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
      require
        verify = recipient
    $ sed -n ''349,352p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
      accept
        domains = +relay_to_domains
        endpass
        verify = recipient


  Other then not having to change a config file, can''t lines 349,352
of /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt be simply
dropped?  I mean, the work they do is also done on previous lines.

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 04:30:03PM -0700, Regid Ichira
wrote:
>     $ sed -n ''178,180p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
>       require
>         message = relay not permitted
>         domains = +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
>     $ sed -n ''185,186p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
>       require
>         verify = recipient
>     $ sed -n ''349,352p''
/etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
>       accept
>         domains = +relay_to_domains
>         endpass
>         verify = recipient
> 
> 
>   Other then not having to change a config file, can''t lines
349,352
> of /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt be simply
> dropped?
Why do you think so?

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse
im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062

--- On Mon, 8/20/12, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 04:30:03PM
> -0700, Regid Ichira wrote:
> >? ???$ sed -n ''178,180p''
> /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
> >? ? ???require
> >? ? ? ???message = relay
> not permitted
> >? ? ? ???domains > +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
> >? ???$ sed -n ''185,186p''
> /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
> >? ? ???require
> >? ? ? ???verify > recipient
> >? ???$ sed -n ''349,352p''
> /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt
> >? ? ???accept
> >? ? ? ???domains > +relay_to_domains
> >? ? ? ???endpass
> >? ? ? ???verify > recipient
> > 
> > 
> >???Other then not having to change a
> config file, can''t lines 349,352
> > of /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt be
> simply
> > dropped?
> 
> Why do you think so?
> 
  A domain that is not
    +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
won''t pass the requirement on line 178.  In particular, it
won''t get to
line 349.  Any recipient, which can not be verified, won''t pass the 
requirement on line 185.  In particular, such a recipient won''t get to 
line 349.  The acl after the accept on line 349 is an unconditional 
accept.  I can''t see an address that won''t be accepted without
the acl
on line 349 accepting it.  I also can''t see a relay_to_domains address 
which, despite the fact that it can not be verified, manged to get 
through to line 352.  Therefore, I can''t see an address for which its 
end result will be different, had the acl on lines 349,352 will be erased.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:23:20PM -0700, Regid Ichira
wrote:
>   A domain that is not
>     +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
> won''t pass the requirement on line 178.  In particular, it
won''t get to
> line 349.  Any recipient, which can not be verified, won''t pass
the
> requirement on line 185.  In particular, such a recipient won''t
get to
> line 349.
As long as the upper ACL lines are left in place by the local admin.
Even if the local admin removes the unconditional verification, it is
still important to have local addresses verified to be able to reject
those undeliverable mails at SMTP time.
>   The acl after the accept on line 349 is an unconditional accept.
Yes, but unverifiable local addresses are going to be rejected before
by the ACL stanza you want removed.
>   I can''t see an address that won''t be accepted without
the acl on
>   line 349 accepting it.
Please note that line 349 will reject unverifiable addresses.
>   I also can''t see a relay_to_domains address which, despite the
fact
>   that it can not be verified, manged to get through to line 352.
>   Therefore, I can''t see an address for which its end result will
be
>   different, had the acl on lines 349,352 will be erased.
The lines are indeed superfluous in the default config, but are there
as a safety measure in case of local modifications to the ACL. This
may be for historical reasons, but changing it now does not affect
functionality, and forces all users to go through a dpkg-conffile
changed dialog. I''d rather avoid that.

Greetings
MArc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse
im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062