On 5/3/2012 8:48 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > On 03.05.2012 17:16, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > [] >> To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet? > > Please refrain from using such words in public forum. > Such usage makes you to be of that kind.
My apologies for allowing my passion to transform into abrasiveness. >>> Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do >>> my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that >>> they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty. >> >> All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can't simply >> use an MUA with submission like everyone else does, but demands he be >> able to run an MTA on his damn desktop/laptop, and demands the default >> MTA config allows him to do what he wants seamlessly, possibly to the >> detriment of others, mainly the guy who wrote this MTA for your use in >> the first place. At least that's my read of this thread. > > Your read is incorrect. World is much larger than your imagination. Please (re)explain the use case you have in mind. It seemed to me the changes you're proposing will have a positive effect, immediately anyway, for only a very small subset of Postfix users, for a niche configuration. This request seems very similar to one made on the XFS list not all that long ago. A user with a home theater PC and a single large WD Green drive was irked that the drive wouldn't stay asleep for more than 30 seconds. He debugged it himself, and found a long standing XFS behavior of accessing the journal or filesystem superblock every 30s IIRC. He said this wasn't necessary and pleaded with the devs to change this behavior, just so his HTPC drive could sleep. XFS was never intended for such a setup, this behavior existing since ~1994/95. The average XFS setup is a server with a dozen to a few hundred or more drives in hardware RAID running 24x7--no sleeping. An SGI employee mentioned just a couple of weeks ago working with a single XFS filesystem spaning 600 drives in an IS16000 array. Not your average XFS drive count, but it is a typical large XFS configuration, and quite a contrast from a single drive HTPC server in a living room. IIRC a patch was eventually developed after many months, when it was determined there was likely no downside, and mainlined after much regression testing and tweaking. All for the benefit of very very few non-typical XFS users. Anyway, I see this as a similar case, and a similar waste of resources expended for the benefit of very few users, when there is nothing inherently "wrong" with the current Postfix implementation, as far as I understand the request. Maybe I simply don't fully understand the issue and the potential benefits yet. -- Stan
