Does `a "group" option and adding a "group" option' a meaningless repeatition?

[RL]

Andreas Metzler <ametzler at bebt.de> writes:

> On 2023-09-10 Regid Ichira via Pkg-exim4-users <pkg-exim4-users at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:
>> Quoting /usr/share/doc/exim4-base/README.Debian.gz :
>
>>     If any of your aliases expand to pipes or files or directories you
>>    should set up a user and a group for these deliveries to run under. You
>>    can do this by setting the "user" and - if necessary - a "group" option
>>    and adding a "group" option if necessary. Alternatively, you can
>>    specify "user" and/or "group" on the transports that are used.
>
>> I am confused by 
>
>>   You can do this by setting the "user" and - if necessary - a "group" option
>>   and adding a "group" option if necessary. 
>
>> Isn't it repeating twice, in a sequence and in the same sentence, the 
>> suggestion of adding a "group" option to the router?
>
> A group needs to be defined but it can be done explicitely (group=) or
> implicitely by setting user= and using the primary group of the user.

I think this would be just as clear to the reader if the README.Debian
file said something like "You can do this by setting a "user" and, if a
different group is required, a "group" option."