[Dovecot] Configuration file changes

[Farkas Levente]

Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 03:41:42PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> 
>>1. Simply provide default settings for any subgroups without doing
>>anything themselves:
>>
>>2. Are servers themselves, providing defaults for subgroups:
>>
>>3. Belong to same server instance, but use different settings for
>>different users:
>>
> 
> 
> Time to make an appeal.
> 
> One of the great advantages of Dovecot, currently, is ease of configuration. 
> It's pretty straightforward, even though it's got a good bit of flexibility.
> 
> The examples that you give above (which I snipped) are ... kinda
> frightening.  And it raises some questions about Yet Another Configuration
> Language and Parser.
> 
> So.  If it's possible to define the configuration files as simple unix
> config files/property files (name value pairs), I say do that.  Postfix
> manages pretty well with that, plus external maps.  Uses more than one file,
> keeping the configuration in a directory.
> 
> If there will only be one file, with sections, maybe consider just using ini
> file style?  Ugly, yes, but familiar.
> 
> If it's going to be heavily structured, as the example seemed to indicate,
> could you *please* consider using stuff designed to handle that sort of
> heavy structuring?  *sigh*  I realize that you hate XML, but it's starting
> to look like another markup format.  Maybe look at YAML?  If you're
> completely opposed to using that, then maybe try really, really hard to make
> it look as much like a Bind 8/9 named.conf file as possible?
> 
> I realize that there are some very complex setups that are going to need
> interesting kinds of work.  It would be nice, though, if there were some
> fairly simple way of configuring them, something that scales up ... and
> down, so that relatively simple installations don't have to learn something
> as complex as sendmial.cf to bring up an imap server.

I've to agree with the above. but at the same time I'd like to be able 
to configure more virtual servers. so let's keep it as simple as 
possible and be able to configure more server with one config file.

ps. I still not understand that 3 new config example...why there is 
group inside group. may be a concrate example...


-- 
   Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"