Zitat von Sebastian Wiesinger <postfix-us...@ml.karotte.org>:
* lst_ho...@kwsoft.de <lst_ho...@kwsoft.de> [2011-12-08 14:46]:>And I had hoped that perhaps this would be an improvement to postfix. >Sadly it seems it was some kind of blasphemy to question the way >postfix does handle this stuff. No, it means until now no one needs this so important to step up with code/patches to improve it. If you really need a reliable mailsystem you simply have to use reliable parts. If your mailsystem respond with 4xx or simply hang in case it is not able to move any mail is just a matter of taste.And that is where I disagree. IMHO a mailsystem should respond with a temporary error if it is experiencing a temporary error (like a lookup table not being availabe) not simply hang there and do.. nothing.
Postfix does this at most places, but some central parts of a mailsystem *must* work to even emmit an useful error. If the MTA has no glue what domain to route where or what domains are local, all options for useful working are over. If the MTA simply does nothing, is crashing or does respond with some error blurbb is cosmetic and a matter of taste. So there is a lot of work for some little benefit you demand for and others don't even need. I agree that it should be documented where the critical parts are, but as said everyone is free to improve at least the documentation.
>But perhaps I'm only getting the wrong impression here. Yes Help is always welcome, simply demand how things could be better is useless.I'm not demanding anything (at least I hope I'm not doing it) but I'm not too happy with a simple "don't do it" and no explanation (but that's my problem, isn't it?). When I try to understand why postfix behaves the way it does I get no reply either. I hoped that on this ML someone would know enough about the inner postfix workings to explain it to me. I'm still waiting for the "use the source" shouts.
You are also free to search the mailing-list and other sources on the net. As said if you think some documentation is lacking, submitt improvments.
Noone even told me that they think it is fine as it is now and that a 4xx error would be the wrong thing. The only think I've been told is "don't do it".
If doesn't matter. If the central parts of your MTA are not working, it is only a matter of taste what errors should occur. Postfix tries hard to fall on the save side and indeed doing nothing *is* at the safe side of the problem. Proceed with maybe bogus results is the wrong way to go.
At the moment it seems pretty simple (on a high level) to me without knowing any of the code: When the trivial-rewrite daemon fails (which postfix can clearly detect, it states it in the logfile), return a 4xx error. Would it be simple to implement? No idea, that's why I'm here on this list to ask people who probably know the code.
I don't know the Postfix internals but if it where easy *and* safe to implement it would have been done already from someone feeling the need to do so.
Am I demanding it to be implemented? No! Would I be happy if it would be implemented? Yes! I like postfix very much, I think it's a great program but I also like it to get better, or at least what I think of being better.
You fail to see that the improvment is not as big as it looks like. If your MTA is dead, it is dead, plain simple. No need to tell "i'm (somewhat) dead".
So even at the danger to sound rude: - If its important for you it does not mean its important for others - If its really important for you try to improve it if others don't bother - Everything looks easy you don't have to do yourself And yes, i have learned this leason myself a plenty of years ago. Regards Andreas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
