Open andrejpodzimek opened 2 years ago
Maybe I should have just sent a PR, but wasn’t entirely sure if it’s a bug or an odd trick that I’m missing.
A small experiment verifies that the order of inclusion of imapd vs imapd-ssl makes no difference, so there's no particular reason for this. I suppose that someone might be dependent on the existing order of things.
IIUC, the “taditional” ordering of config imports in Courier is:
esmtpd
only foresmtpd
esmtpd
overridden byesmtpd-ssl
foresmtpd-ssl
imapd-ssl
overridden byimapd
forimapd
imapd
overridden byimapd-ssl
forimapd-ssl
There is one place where rule No. 2 is violated: HERE. All 3 other locations that follow rule No. 2 (here, here and here) are correct.
(This also implies that
courier/courier/courier/imapd.rc.in
differs fromcourier/courier-imap/imapd.rc.in
in this particular detail.)For the
imapd-ssl.rc.in
variant of the config file, all 4 relevant locations are in sync by rule No. 3.There is no obvious problem this would be causing, at least none that I know of, mainly because this only affects the daemon’s environment, whereas most of the command line parts are resolved from the file imports above, which are in the correct order in all cases.
But still… It just caught my attention and it can cause some confusion during debugging.