Nathan Zachary posted on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:29:52 -0400 as excerpted: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:21:07 +0300 Eray Aslan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> > It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large, >> >> Yes, that's the idea. >> > Considering Postfix is an MTA that is commonly used in production > environments, it is likely better to provide users with ample warning > than to risk the application failing and troubleshooting thereafter.
I'd agree (tho I don't use postfix). Additionally, IIRC during a recent news item discussion someone said they believe if anything, we're underusing the news facilities. IDR seeing major disagreement, and I too tend to agree. They're one-shot unless an admin deliberately goes back to read them over and higher visibility than ewarns. Ewarns often appears every update for years, over sometimes a dozen updates, so even those like me that try to read them sometimes miss something new in the "noise" of messages we've seen over and over and over and over and over. Of course, the visibility filtering for news items was deliberately designed to help avoid that, and as long as news items /remain/ single- shot, not getting abused to appear over and over (or we'd need yet another layer to stand out from that noise), certainly, from current levels I really do think we could easily double or more the frequency, without being too annoying/abusive. So yeah, this one might be a relatively small thing, but with this sort of package a single person missing a single warning can mean a service outage for dozens or hundreds, so I think it's worth it. And since only postfix users who haven't upgraded yet will see it, and then only once, yes, do it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
