On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > > > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> > > >
> > > > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
> > >
> > > Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> > > to rename the file.
> >
> > and why change it? is it broken?
>
> Its broken with respect to QMTP support, yes.
>
> I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled
> like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
A symlink get's the job done, granted. But I would prefer that the patch
doesn't change the current smtproutes behaviour if we can.
Image this:
- i have a stock qmail server with a smtproutes;
- i decide that I want to use qmtp with mxps
- i patch qmail with Russell's or Johan patch
- suddenly, my smtproutes stop working... because I forgot to rename
the smtproutes file.
Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first
and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the
first? It gives you a clean upgrade path , and doesn't force you to
change the configuratio (mv smtproutes mailroutes) just because you
patched qmail...
My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best
not to force changes on a working situation.
But, maybe that's just me :)
Best regards,
PS: I've been sending my messages to both the list and private
Cc'ing. Sorry for that. I had Shift+L wrongly configured in mutt :)
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
