On 20 Jan 1997, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> The old config file is still there; I can read and write it (and can do it
> a good bit faster than the 1.x code does since I don't use formats or that
> clunky old data structure). It is only there as a nod to backwards
> compatibility, though.
Why even bother?
Just create a small program that converts 1.x config files to 2.x config
files.
Then leave majordomo to do only 2.x stuff -- there should be no backwards
compatibility if it takes away functionability. There were no promises
made for 2.x in that area -- why start giving them?
> No way. I added all of this to lower the overhead; there's no point in
> raising it back up again. The way things are shaping up, you can chmod 600
> everything (except the directories; 700 for them) and let no human in
> except for installation or to change the config defaults file. (You can
> put the code in a different place from all of your lists.) If you edit
> stuff, it's your problem. Majordomo itself never sees this file and has no
> control over it's in it; it asks Perl to dump part of its internal data
> representation to a file.
Well, the permissions sounds very good -- but is the wrapper still needed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
