On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:33:01PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 13:02:20 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:59:25PM -0400, fursink wrote:
> > > Would the fact that this is 2.3.3... prevent the transport
> > > from working at all?
> >
> > No, and in fact the transport is almost certainly used, but "-o
> > syslog_name" does not work as expected in 2.3.3. Rather, the
> > syslog_name is inherited from the master(8) daemon, and cannot
> > be customized on a per-service basis.
>
> There is no note at postconf.5.html#syslog_name regarding the
> changed behavior in later versions. Should there be such a note?
The postconf(5) descriptions, generally apply to main.cf behaviour.
Anomalies with "-o" in obsolete releases, are not necessarily a
compelling reason to update the docs, but if someone volunteers a
well-crafted sentence inside a patch, perhaps Wietse will add it to
"proto/postconf.proto".
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
