On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:34:45AM -0300, Bruno Negrão wrote: > > >>a) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" says that auth_pop and auth_imap have > >>the > >>same control files as qmail-lspawn: not true because qmail-lspawn does > >>not > >>read "ldaprebind" while auth_imap and auth_pop do. > > > >Wrong qmail-lspawn reads ldaprebind. It does not use it but it reads the > >file. > But "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not say that neither. According to > "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE", the ldaprebind file doesn't even exist. > > >>b) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not say which program reads the > >>"cert.pem" control file. But qmail-control(5) will show that for you. > >Cert.pem is not directly read by any qmail-ldap tool. qmail-smtpd reads > >now smtpcert and decides from there which cert should be used. > Thanks by introducing me to smtpcert, another control files not mentioned > on "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE". qmail-control(5) will report its existence > for the mainstream. >
smtpcert is something introduced lately and is documented in QLDAPINSTALL. We never said that "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" is complete and up to date. QLDAPINSTALL ist the document where all control files are documented (and there is a section about smtpcert in it). > >Btw. there is also a ENV to override smtpcert. > One more "complicateness" of qmail-ldap. This will fit smoothly on the > "overriden" column of "THE CONTROL FILES TABLE" in qmail-control(5) > Once again have a look at QLDAPINSTALL. Btw. it is not "complicateness" but more flexibility of qmail-ldap. > > >"Furthermore, Qmail-ldap broke down stock Qmail's rule that 1 control > >file > >is read by only 1 qmail-program." > >Wrong. ~control/me is read by more than one qmail-program. > I know that. But in Qmail, "me" is the default for almost everything. And > besides "me", no other control file is read by two different programs. > > >There are a few more files that behave similar. > Would you give me an example? I really cannot guess what. > rcpthosts > > >The documentation location table is plain worng and super ugly. > Explain to me why is it wrong, please. > It is the wrong aporach. > >It remebers me too much of unpleasant Solaris nightmares. > Come on Claudio, this is bullshit. We're system administrators, not graphic > designers. Please evaluate the table for what it informs, not by how it > looks. Btw, that yellow flower on the upper left corner of the Main_Page is > also a nightmare. (hehehe) > The information in that table is unintresting. If I'm intrested in the way ldapserver is configured it would type "man ldapserver" and perhaps "man -k ldapserver". Oh wait we're talking about a homepage here so man does not work. So why not add links form the large table of files to their explanation? Or why not do it in a different way -- instead of emulating a system that does not work in the web. > >Just make a page per config file. This is a web-page and even for > >manpages I would do it > >like this. There is no need to save inodes. > I'm not thinking in saving inodes when I'm grouping the control-files. By > creating a manpage for each control file my intention was not to polute the > Section 5 with 30 more manpages. And I believe that grouping those files > that way increases the awareness of the functionality of those files. > I don't care how many files I have in section 5. I care about how to find them. > But if people think I should do that, I just have an idea: I could create > the manpages for the shared control files with a "qmail-control" radical. > Like this: > > - qmail-control-ldaprebind(5) > - qmail-control-ldapbasedn(5) > - qmail-control-ldappassword(5) > - qmail-control-dirmaker(5) > - qmail-control-etc(5) > Iick, how should somebody guess these names. > This won't be terrible. > That's your opinion, definitively not mine. -- :wq Claudio
