|
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: Wietse Venema (wietse
porcupine.org)Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 14:21:15 CDT
- Next message: Brad Knowles: "Re: reject_maps_rbl with ORBS?"
- Previous message: Wietse Venema: "Re: error in INSTALL.sh for 20000924 snapshot"
- In reply to: Matthias Andree: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Matthias Andree:
> 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.
Mailbox locking methods should be configurable from main.cf.
In a heterogeneous environment, the compile-time choice would be
wrong. For example, even though 4.4BSD uses no user.lock files, it
will have to use user.lock files when the mail spool is shared with
other hosts that do require user.lock files.
Wietse
- Next message: Brad Knowles: "Re: reject_maps_rbl with ORBS?"
- Previous message: Wietse Venema: "Re: error in INSTALL.sh for 20000924 snapshot"
- In reply to: Matthias Andree: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: [patch] postconf -l option"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]