From: Aaron Wolfe (aawolfegmail.com)
Date: Sat May 10 2008 - 20:05:34 CDT

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

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Wietse Venema <wietseporcupine.org> wrote:

> Aaron Wolfe:
> > > > For milters there is milter_default_action = accept.
> > >
> > > This is because Sendmail provides it, not because it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > > Can this be implemented for policy daemons as well?
> > >
> > > I don't like dropping the shields down because some service dies.
> > >
> > > It causes people to lose confidence in Postfix, because it results in
> > > unpredictable behavior. There is enough bad software on the Internet.
> >
> > Would it be possible (and make sense) to have an option to specify
> somehow
> > that a particular policy filter is non essential and it's failure should
> be
> > considered equivalent to "DUNNO" or similar?
>
> Anyone who provides a critical service should periodically run a
> tool that performs sanity checks, and that gives an errant server
> a whack over its head when it locks up.
>
> I would appreciate it if people would stopp asking for "drop the
> shields down" features, because they will be misused. Instead of
> adding crap to Postfix, invest the effort into making services
> more reliable.
>

I would appreciate it if you could explain what "drop the shields down"
means, and how making postfix more tolerant of policy filter failure would
lead to misuse?
Maybe folks would be less likely to ask for this feature if we understood
better why it is bad for us?

-Aaron

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