Wietse Venema:
> Your escaping multiplies the size of the logging by five.
>
> Life sucks, doesn't it.

Victor.Duchovnimorganstanley.com:
> Postfix could emit =??B?base64(data)?= for each log element that requires
> encoding. The expansion is only 4/3 + 7bytes and the number of
> elements in a log line bounded. Searching such logs is another matter.
>
> :-) :-) :-)
>
> The above is mostly in jest, but I sympathise with the desire to have
> unambiguous logs. It is not clear there is good solution.

One solution is to replace portions of the logged text by [...]
and to display the portion of text that contains the offending
data.

    reject: <error-class>: <description of error>:\
        Subject: humpty dumpty [...] together again

But this would be solving the wrong problem.

If you want to know what mail gets caught in your nets, then you
must not reject it, but you must file it for later inspection.

        Wietse
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

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