On Wed, 2001-09-26 at 14:13, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hello Casey, > > Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 7:54:25 PM, you wrote: > > Not only that, but (at least for me) it's really up to the > > customer, and the customers want this ability, so I'm very glad > > it's there. > > Trust me, you really DON'T want to have multiple administrators > messing with > the data at the same time as the number of problems resulting from > this kind of stuff is indefinite. It's hard enough to get RDBMS > backed > solutions working correctly over the web and the vast majority of > code > which is marketed as multi user capable really breaks if two people > are operating on the same sets of data at the same time. The only > thing that could be done in a halfway safe way (i.e. user can at most > destroy his own account which the admin can fix afterward) is to > allow > NORMAL users to change their pws while someone else is working with > the system.
I disagree. The RFC's state that email domains should accept email to postmaster. It doesn't state that postmaster has to be a pop account. One problem with having postmaster as a pop account, for some sites, is no one ever checks the postmaster email. They only check thier email accounts. So for those sites it would be better to not have postmaster as a pop account, and instead forward the postmaster email to the real pop account of the primary user. With the above type of setup, it would be very nice to allow that primary user to be the domain admin. Sites that would have multiple administrators changing email passwords, and hence create problems, can just not use this feature. > > > I was emailing back and forth with Gabriel Ambuehl about the > > no-forwarding-postmaster's-email topic, and I accidentally deleted > > the last one, but I believe the concensus was that deleting > > postmaster and making it just forward to another admin (or even > > non-admin) account is feasible because the only thing that relies > > on postmaster existing is the code to detect whether a domain is an > > alias or not, but that code is no longer needed (or something along > > those lines), so it should be ok to whack postmaster. Is that > > right, Gabriel? With the new feature that Bill Shupp added, you can go ahead and delete the postmaster account and setup another user to be the admin. Then forward the postmaster email to an email address. > > It basically says what I said. AFAIK, the code I was referring to > isn't > yet integrated so it is safe to delete the postmasters and AFAIK it's > still allowed in the pre5 and perhaps always will be although I still > think is a bad thing TM. > > Ken if Bill may introduce new features before 5.0 is released, > couldn't > you introduce my patch too (cause I'm building some code that relies > on some form (I don't care too much which one) of vaddaliasdomain() > being present)? I think we are going to stick with the current domain alias code. It was there in the old 4.9 version and the early 4.10 versions and tested to work fine. It got removed from the later 4.10 version when we completely rewrote the code. I then added it back into the 5.0pre releases and it seems to be working fine. Adding in your changes could possibly break things, and break current sites, and would require more testing than I care to do. So unless there is an overwhelming reason from folks to use your code, I think we will stick with the current alias code. I'm sorry you are building code that relies on your changes. perhaps you can modify your code to use the alias code in the current 5.0pre releases. Ken Jones
