On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:47PM -0400, Matt Hayes wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>
> Now, I'm not all that bright on how postfix sorts out the hostname, and
> frankly, I don't care, but I don't like people saying its a 'bug' when I
> have no problems following configuration directives.
>
> Can someone PLEASE explain this in clear terms as to what they are
> complaining about?
An MTA needs a stable set of names for the domains listed in mydestination,
so that locally originated mail delivered locally is repliable. A laptop
with a DHCP-based FQDN is not a good candidate for defaulting the local
domain to the (volatile) FQDN of the host.
Setting myhostname to "shortname.localdomain" is FAR preferable to picking
up some random DHCP (or reverse DNS lookup) supplied domain and becoming
an open relay for sub-domains of your ISP's domain or being unable to
reply to previously delivered local email.
In addition, Postfix operates correctly on stand-alone hosts, that
are not networked delivering local email between local users. There
must not be network dependencies in local mail delivery.
Operating Postfix on a laptop typically requires some of the configuration
options listed in SOHO_README.html.
The authors of the bug report have not thought this through. The bug
report is spurious.
If they want the O/S distribution to fully configure a SOHO Postfix during
system installation, the Debian laptop profile would have to ask the user
for a list of user accounts and their mappings to external ISP mailboxes,
as well as submission server settings and passwords, ... This is a lot
of complexity to deal with at install-time.
Far simpler to just deliver all local (cron, ...) mail locally, and
to expect the laptop user to use Thunderbird, Evolution, ... rather
than mutt or Pine via a local Postfix.
--
Viktor.
