On 2006-02-06, at 1620, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:


i'm thinking about possibly including the qmailtap patch in my combined
patch file. however, the biggest problem i've seen from people using
QUEUE_EXTRA is that they set up loops when they try to send the copies to a remote address, and because the copy has to traverse the queue, it gets logged and sent to the monitor address... and THAT copy gets logged, and
so forth...

that's not a problem with QUEUE_EXTRA, that's a problem with the person not reading how to properly use QUEUE_EXTRA. Adding 'loop detection' code into this drastically complicates the process and doesn't add any real value.

that's what i was afraid of.

i understand the problem, you understand the problem, and i'm sure anybody who thinks about it for more than ten seconds will understand it as well... but because my combined patch has been adopted by "qmailrocks", if i were to add inter7's qmailtap patch (or any other QUEUE_EXTRA patch) i would be flooded with question from "typical qmailrocks users" about why their server is sending multiple copies of every message and killing their server.

i'm sure you of all people know that qmailrocks has a reputation for being "qmail for dummies". the only reason i joined their list is because they're using my combined patch- before i joined their list i was getting several messages per day from qmailrocks users who couldn't figure something-or-other out, and emailed me directly because i "wrote" the patch so i must be an expert who's willing to offer free consulting services to every random person on the internet...

the question came up on the qmailrocks list, from a user in europe somewhere, who is legally required to keep copies of every message sent or received by every employee at their company. you and i know that QUEUE_EXTRA is the core of how to make this happen, but trying to explain all of the details to somebody who has no idea what a queue is, let alone how to tell if a given delivery instruction will result in another message being added to it... i'm sure you can imagine the aggravation waiting along that road.

my hope was that inter7's "qmailtap" patch would have some kind of loop detection built in, so that this doesn't happen and i can add it to my combined patch, knowing that i'm not going to have people setting up server-killing loops.

my answer to this question is usually "i'm not going to add it to my combined patch- if you can add it, more power to you" but i figured in the interest of fairness i would at least ask the inter7 guys about it... the qmailtap web page lists this as one of the places to discuss qmailtap, and i know several of the inter7 guys are on this list. maybe one of them will have better news...

--------------------------------------------------
| John M. Simpson - KG4ZOW - Programmer At Large |
| http://www.jms1.net/           <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
--------------------------------------------------
| Mac OS X proves that it's easier to make UNIX  |
| pretty than it is to make Windows secure.      |
--------------------------------------------------


Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to