On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 19:11:47 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> I would just 
> 
>     payload = skip("tls=blah/blah...", 4)
> 
>     features[] =split(payload, "/")
> 
> and count the nummer of instancs of each feature complete with
> decorations, ...

I *think* this is an accurate reflection on what the tls= log token
represents:

    SMTPD TLS Connection Stats
    --------------------------
          29   may?
          26   dane:halfdane
          23   dane
          23   dane?
          22   may:none
          21   dane:encrypt
          21   encrypt
          19   may
          16   none

    SMTPD TLS Policy Diagnostics
    ----------------------------
          24   !requiretls:noencryption
          22   requiretls:none
          20   !requiretls:nostarttls
          18   !requiretls:none
          17   !requiretls:nocertmatch
          16   requiretls:nocertmatch
          14   requiretls?
           7   requiretls

The first being the counts of the "levels" seen and the second being
the "policies."

Note: The above was generated from faked-up log data, so it may not
necessarily (?) make sense. I'm just demonstrating how the bits of
the tls= log token would be parsed-out and reported.

> ... with a translation into human text.
[snip]
> 
> Coming up with the human translation is real work, feel free to
> reach out to me (and Viktor) to clear up any confusion.

I’ve thought about the “human translation” suggestion, and for now
I’d like to keep pflogsumm strictly in the business of parsing and
counting  verbatim, rather than attempting to translate things into
prose.

It's not so much the work, per se, but about assumptions and
long-term correctness. Once I start attaching interpretations to
specific atoms (especially as Postfix evolves), pflogsumm is
implicitly asserting semantics that it can’t reasonably validate on
its own.

Since these tokens are already compact, expressive, and documented on
the Postfix side, I’m inclined to report them as-is and let the admin
interpret them.

Regards,
Jim
-- 
Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering.  If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to