Re: Parametring cancel processing (Cancel-Lock vs unauthenticated cancels)

Grant Taylor <[email protected]> writes:
> On 1/2/22 2:41 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I think it shouldn't be a no-op; it should either work to override the
>> config setting or we should remove it so that it will cause an error
>> and people will have to update their configuration.  Otherwise, I think
>> we risk silent and surprising behavior change.

> I too am against the no-op.

> I'd much rather see it be a warning for one (or more) versions and
> eventually be tantamount to a syntax error to fail hard / fast.

Warnings are a bit challenging for daemons, since they tend to get eaten
by the init system and put somewhere where no one will see them.  Although
since INN has its own log reporting, I suppose we could toss a warning
into the news logs and be relatively sure that someone would be notified
about it.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.