> I don't remember asking for your judgement on my motives or thought processes.
And I don't recall asking you for anything at all. > But I'm done with it I'm sure that makes us both happy. Feel free to prattle on at will. That's what bit-buckets are for. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:58 +0200, "Jeroen Geilman" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/06/2011 07:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:06 +0200, "Jeroen Geilman"<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> As the documentation for -o stress= explains > >> > > There's that persistent presumption that message sent = message > > received. > > > > I don't remember asking for your judgement on my motives or thought > processes. > > What you stated was incorrect - I corrected it. > > > I read the documentation. Lots of it. And clearly, as you've taken the > > time to point out, still managed to get it wrong. > > > > Thanks for amplifying my point. > > > > I merely answered the implied question in your incorrect assumption on > how -o stress works. > > > >> You probably haven't calculated the absurd number of possible > >> configurations. > >> > > No, I haven't done any such calculation. That in itself would be > > absurd. > > > > To do what I suggest -- simply suggest, as requested by Wietse -- is > > pick *one*. A rich, complex one. > > > > Just because you can't reasonably cover ALL possible scenarios, is your > > point/argument that one shouldn't attempt to do ONE thing? > > No. > > >> What IS clear from the docs, since it is referred to multiple times > >> > > There's that presumption again. > > > > Really, my response to Wietse's request was NOT a commentary on *your* > > clear grasp of Postfix. I'm glad everything is so clear to you; I'm > > envious. > > > > No, you're arrogant and supercilious. > > But I'm done with it - I am sorry I corrected your misassumptions. > > > >> My advice is to read the man pages for each daemon carefully, and refer > >> back to them whenever you have questions such as these, since the man > >> page will tell you exactly what function each program performs, and > >> which configuration options apply to it. > >> > > Thanks for that. RTFM never crossed my mind ... > > > > Add "sarcastic" to the list. > > > And my advice would be to read MY post, note that I've stated that I > > *have* read and re-read the docs, > > And yet failed to interpret the simpler cases you mentioned above. > What hope would you have of grokking a complex setup ? > > > I know, I am being nasty. > > Your attitude richly deserves it. > > > -- > J. > >
