Milter-greylist

> 
> I realize it's probably too late for the next stable and I don't even
> know if it has been discussed before but I would really like to see an
> include option in greylist.conf similar to what BIND DNS has for
> named.conf:
> 
> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/include.html
> 
> Basically, wherever "include <file>" is encountered it's replaced with
> the contents of <file>. Reasons are the same as in the link above.
> 
> I'm ok with a change in one of the included files not triggering a
> reload but that we have to HUP ourselves. That's not a problem.
> 
> What do others think? I love the syntax of greylist.conf and often use
> it instead of Sendmail, if only I had the above feature I could
> integrate log parsing scripts that would blacklist spammers, I don't
> want to mess with the main file for that.
> 
> /peter bonivart
> 

Hello,

I read through the examples for the "BIND" for the
advantage of having included configuration file.
By my opinion all the 3 arguments are going wrong
on the fact that when there is a new sub-configuration
file generated there has to be a notification system
to be in place (like sending HUP signal to the process)
which must be as priviledged as the BIND process itself.

If you write a code to verify for the new versions
of those files to send a HUP signal as well as you
could write a script instead which concatenates those
files into a single master config file.
(I am already doing that way!
I have a template file plus extractions from different
databases with formating script to generate the ACL
statements into the master config file.)

Syntax verification has to be done in both cases
so no difference on that.

With the include statement more code is required which
leads to bigger running process memory footprint as well
as higher chance having more bug in the code.

Bests,
Attila Bruncsak