Re: postconf -n suggestion
Wietse Venema wrote: Making trouble reports easier requires a saslfinger-like tool that captures info about Postfix, the OS, build options, etc. While not updated in a few years, postfinger[1] does a fair job of this. [1] ftp://ftp.wl0.org/ftp.wl0.org/postfinger/ -- -Andrew J. Caines- Unix Systems Engineer a.j.cai...@halplant.com FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris, Web/Mail/Proxy/... http://halplant.com:2001/ Machines take me by surprise with great frequency - Alan Turing
Re: postconf -n suggestion
a.j.cai...@halplant.com (Andrew J. Caines) writes: Wietse Venema wrote: Making trouble reports easier requires a saslfinger-like tool that captures info about Postfix, the OS, build options, etc. While not updated in a few years, postfinger[1] does a fair job of this. [1] ftp://ftp.wl0.org/ftp.wl0.org/postfinger/ I don't follow postfix-users now as much as I used to. If there are improvements that can be made to postfinger I'll certainly add them. Simon
Re: postconf -n suggestion
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:10:13AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote: Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot -n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting... It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the second line, like so: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 ( echo $(postconf -h mail_name mail_version mail_release_date) uname -a ) | sed -e 's/^/# /' postconf -n -- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an it worked, thanks follow-up. If you must respond, please put It worked, thanks in the Subject so I can delete these quickly.
Re: postconf -n suggestion
On 3/4/2009 12:26 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote: Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot -n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting... It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the second line, like so: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 ( echo $(postconf -h mail_name mail_version mail_release_date) uname -a ) | sed -e 's/^/# /' postconf -n Thats easy for *you* to say! (ianap) ;) I was just talking about something that would make it easier when someone was asking for help on the list... I don't think the above will quite accomplish that... -- Best regards, Charles
Re: postconf -n suggestion
On 4-Mar-2009, at 09:22, Wietse Venema wrote: Charles Marcus: Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot -n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting... It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the second line, like so: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 Maybe postfix could do the same with postconf -n output? No. The output has a defined name = value format. Adding cruft would break bazillions of scripts that rely on it. version=2.4.2 uname=FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE ?? -- Hey, baby, I've got just the cure for that penis envy back at m apartment...
Re: postconf -n suggestion
Wietse Venema wrote: Charles Marcus: Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot -n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting... It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the second line, like so: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 Maybe postfix could do the same with postconf -n output? No. The output has a defined name = value format. Adding cruft would break bazillions of scripts that rely on it. Wietse There was a discussion a while back about always including mail_version = value in postconf -n output. I can't remember why that isn't a good idea... -- Noel Jones
Re: postconf -n suggestion
At 12:52 PM 3/4/2009, Charles Marcus wrote: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 If the output is name =value then could the output just be conf = 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf OS = Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 and not break things? (or something like that). rick
Re: postconf -n suggestion
LuKreme: On 4-Mar-2009, at 09:22, Wietse Venema wrote: Charles Marcus: Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot -n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting... It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the second line, like so: # 1.1.11: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 x86_64 Gentoo Base System release 1.12.11.1 Maybe postfix could do the same with postconf -n output? No. The output has a defined name = value format. Adding cruft would break bazillions of scripts that rely on it. version=2.4.2 uname=FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE The postconf -n command lists known parameters that are explicitly specified in main.cf. If you want a fingerprinting tool, don't mess up postconf. Wietse
Re: postconf -n suggestion
On 4-Mar-2009, at 11:54, Wietse Venema wrote: postconf -n does not list parameters unless they are set in main.cf. The simplicity of the tool makes it useful for building into other tools. If we start making random exceptions then we get on a slippery slope (why stop with mail_version? why not also include SASL and TLS, chroot stuff, and so on). I do agree in principle with this, but I think that for version at least, an exception should be made. (OS is largely irrelevant, but version is pretty much critical all the time). -- I've always had a flair for stage directions.
Re: postconf -n suggestion
I was just talking about something that would make it easier when someone was asking for help on the list... I don't think the above will quite accomplish that... In many cases (I'm not gonna do statistics) new users do not post their questions correctly - often we can see 2nd message in thread asking for more information according to MAIL_DEBUG readme. So I think that making changes to postconf -n output are useless. If one will manage to read MAIL_DEBUG, one will also be able to have a look at postfix version and other system-related informations. If not, certainly one should not do any changes to mail server. Honestly. Pawel Lesniak
Re: postconf -n suggestion
On 3/4/2009 2:36 PM, Paweł Leśniak wrote: I was just talking about something that would make it easier when someone was asking for help on the list... I don't think the above will quite accomplish that... In many cases (I'm not gonna do statistics) new users do not post their questions correctly - often we can see 2nd message in thread asking for more information according to MAIL_DEBUG readme. So I think that making changes to postconf -n output are useless. If one will manage to read MAIL_DEBUG, one will also be able to have a look at postfix version and other system-related informations. If not, certainly one should not do any changes to mail server. Honestly. Irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with simplifying things... By your argument, there is no need for the postconf tool at all... Wietse has already explained why this will not be done, so further discussion is useless. Personally, I don't see any reason to not add a new flag that does this, but again - it doesn't matter what I think... Besides, Victor did provide a way to do this on an individual basis, and even though ianap, I may play with it a bit... Oh, and thanks Victor for that...
Re: postconf -n suggestion
W dniu 2009-03-04 20:53, Charles Marcus pisze: Irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with simplifying things... Simplifying does not mean changing behavior. As Wietse said, postconf -n shows only setting from main.cf. So adding values from outside main.cf is not simplifying at all. By your argument, there is no need for the postconf tool at all... Never said anything like that. Pawel Lesniak
