From: Geert Hendrickx (ghentelenet.be)
Date: Sun May 11 2008 - 05:04:05 CDT

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

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:05:53PM -0300, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Terry Allen wrote:
> | Hi again,
> | I would have to agree with Wietse - in the years my systems have
>
> Me too. Wietse is right. If some component dies or fails for any reason, I
> want to know
> immediatelly. Via sanity checks, preemptive procedures and/or users
> complaining. Whatever happens first.
>
> If the system's components are healthy, that'd never happen anyway :)

Why do people always insist to link "unavailable" to "crappy software" ?

This could just as well be about a network problem, or a greylisting daemon
being upgraded, or whatever. For example in the case of greylisting via a
policy daemon, a failure is anything but critical and e-mail could just as
well be accepted instead of deferred. Any greylisting implementation has a
similar "bypass" option for when its database is unavailable.

        Geert

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