>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[email protected]> writes: Steve> Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan Steve> documents this in a subordinate clause of his qmail Steve> reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is bouncing mail Steve> and at the same time, your system crashes, the bounce mail Steve> contents may be corrupt or incomplete. Steve> This sounds like data loss, which is normally considered a Steve> grave bug per <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer>. Do Steve> people disagree that this is a grave bug? If you think Steve> it's a grave bug, do you think it should be a blocker for Steve> archive inclusion? Sam> Steve, I'm not on the TC. However I do have a fair bit of Sam> experience with Internet standards and what sorts of Sam> guarantees Internet protocols make to their users about Sam> reliability. If you take a look at the bottom of Page 19 of Sam> RFC 3461 you will find that an MTA is permitted to return a Sam> partial bounce message. Try page 20 instead:-( Sam> While I'll admit that returning corrupted bounce messages is Sam> kind of ugly, I'm failing to see how it could be grave if Sam> returning a message truncated earlier would be just fine. Sam> Personally, I think that returning corrupting bounce messages Sam> would be a bug although I would not mind too much if a Sam> maintainer tagged it wontfix. Sam> However, one form of corruption would be more serious. If Sam> bounce messages may include contents of other messages, or Sam> random memory possibly including security sensitive memory, Sam> then that would be an RC bug of some form in my mind. Sam> --Sam Sam> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to Sam> [email protected] with a subject of Sam> "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
