I will not repeat myself again. End of discussion.

        Wietse

Matthias Andree:
> wietseporcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > Matthias Andree:
> > > A reasonable, WORKING approximation of:
> > >
> > > owner-foo: somebody
> > > foo: bar1 bar2
> > >
> > > is:
> > >
> > > foo: "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -fowner-foo bar1 bar2"
> >
> > This solution does not solve the original problem:
> >
> > One alias expands to multiple addresses; one of the addresses
> > needs to be deferred (for example, it is a |command). All
> > recipients in the expansion will receive the mail again.
>
> No, it works around current Postfix bugs or misdesign.
>
> Again:
>
> testme: |sendmail t1 t2
> t1: |exit 0
> t2: |exit 1
>
> 57020A2066 479 Sat Feb 10 18:50:50 owner-testmeemma1.emma.line.org
> (Command died with status 1: "exit 1")
> t2emma1.emma.line.org
>
> -> correct.
>
> testme: t1 t2
> t1: |exit 0
> t2: |exit 1
>
> 4145CA2029 319 Sat Feb 10 18:52:31 madt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de
> (Command died with status 1: "exit 1")
> t2emma1.emma.line.org
> testmeemma1.emma.line.org
>
> -> wrong, has testme mentioned in its todo list. testme simply and
> clearly does not belong here, I have written "testme: t1 t2", not
> "testme: testme t1 t2". Why is testme recorded here? For been_here
> matching, maybe.
>
> Picture:
>
> foo: bar1 bar2
> with temporary failure on bar2 expands to: bar2 foo
>
> foo: |sendmail bar1 bar2
> with temporary failure on bar2 expands to: bar2
>
> Do you see the difference? foo is missing from the expansion in the
> second case. Currently, Postfix is not removing the original recipient
> if it has expanded it properly. Why in hell does it need to keep the
> original recipient and why does it discard delivery information?
>
> > Your solution also does not handle the case where an alias name
> > appears in its expansion. Sendmail will deliver the mail to the
> > user. Your solution causes a mail delivery loop.
>
> I _always_ use "foo: \foo, bar" aliases. I NEVER rely on mailer's
> recursion elimination.
>
> > I repeat my requirements for the last time.
> >
> > 1 - When an alias name appears in its own expansion, mail is
> > sent to the user instead.
> > 2 - When a user appears in her own .forward file, mail is sent
> > to the mailbox instead.
>
> > Requirements 1 and 2 combine recursively.
>
> Yes. Why does this still need to the original recipient? If it's for
> switching from "expand" to "deliver", then track "expanded: foo" rather
> than just copying "foo" to the recipient todo list.
>
> Still, there is not reason why THESE require duplicates or copying the
> original recipient.
>
> > 3 - Robustness: must run in a finite amount of memory, even when
> > delivering to an alias with millions of expansions.
>
> Copying the done-addresses with a done-flag to prevent duplicates does
> not require more memory (apart from the 50 flag bits or bytes or maybe
> long words) than the original message had. Tracking DONE addresses, even
> commands, is safe since you NEVER deliver to DONE addresses.
>
> > 4 - Security: does not store |command or /file/name as TODO
> > destinations.
>
> ACK.
>
> > However, your solution does not solve the original problem:
> >
> > One alias expands to multiple addresses; one of the addresses
> > needs to be deferred (for example, it is a |command). All
> > recipients in the expansion will receive the mail again.
>
> Yes, and this problem must be solved. Wild duping is a show-stopper.
>
> Imagine you expand to 200 addresses, 4 queue files with 50 recipients
> each, in each of these 50, one must be deferred. So you're having the
> original recipient 4 times, generating 796 duplicates! This must not
> happen. This is not robust.
>
> Would you care to explain as to why the current behaviour (duping) is
>
> 1. technically correct
>
> 2. a technical necessity/the only available solution?
>
> I see all of your requirements, I have yet to see why these MUST cause
> the misbehaviour I am seeing.
>
> --
> Matthias Andree
>
>
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]