|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: [patch] postconf -l option
From: Matthias Andree (ma
dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de)Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 13:32:27 CDT
- Next message: Len Conrad: "reject_maps_rbl with ORBS?"
- Previous message: Vivek Khera: "Re: error in INSTALL.sh for 20000924 snapshot"
- Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Maybe reply: Matthias Andree: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
wietse
porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> The patch solves the wrong problem.
> Mailbox locking methods should be configurable from main.cf.
True. (A compile-time option would be sufficient as most software has
this as a compile-time option.) However, until it's there, the user
should know what mailbox locking methods Postfix uses (and in what
order) without the need to read Postfix' source code. Parts of the
audience will be able to do so, other parts won't.
Historical information: I wrote the patch since I needed a *quick* way
to find out about locking methods across architectures.
Would making the compile-times variable visible to the administrator who
is about to install Postfix help? Or /must/ it be a main.cf or master.cf
option?
-- Matthias Andree
- Next message: Len Conrad: "reject_maps_rbl with ORBS?"
- Previous message: Vivek Khera: "Re: error in INSTALL.sh for 20000924 snapshot"
- Next in thread: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Maybe reply: Matthias Andree: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]