> On Mar 10, 2021, at 12:36 PM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
>
> Dan Mahoney (Gushi):
>>> Why not prepend a header (like Milters already do) and let Spamassassin
>>> etc. trigger on that label.
>>
>> Let me try this a second time.
>>
>> Fixing the milter to return success is the patch I'm currently working on
>> for opendmarc. Telling me "why don't you fix your milter" is already
>> underway. My question was/is "does a knob to override this behavior in
>> postfix exist?"
>
> You replied affirmatively when I asked if you were asking for a
> Postfix change. What else can that mean than: it does not exist.
Respectfully, no, I didn’t. Please re-read.
You described what the behavior is, in a first message:
(Message-Id: <4dwhxt0qwyzj...@spike.porcupine.org>)
Then, in a few-minutes-later message, asked if I was asking for a change:
(Message-Id: <4dwhcc0vmgzj...@spike.porcupine.org>)
None of my messages replied to 4Dwhcc0VmgzJrNy.
I replied to that first message with a sentence that started with “Yes, and…”
meaning “Okay, I have read the docs and understand that’s the current behavior"
I should have read from your reply the implication there that "the behavior is
not configurable”. None of my replies were to the second message, because I
had already been answering the first.
In my email to claus, my question was “I’d like to know the full set of options
available”. Not “Plz change postfix for me"
I do say that in an ideal world that allowing the administrator more control is
good, but I’m trying to update the README for a product (ours) which has
already caused people surprise (before I got here)— I can’t fix the fact that
it’s done that thusfar.
I can only document and push patches to make it more friendly in the future.
Which I am definitely trying to do.
I’ve been on the project for a few days. I’m feeling a lot of vitriol here.
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
>> Either way, this is documentation that could go in both a postfix and
>> opendmarc doc.
>
> What documentation? I will update Postfix documentation when there
> is a Postfix change, or when the documentation is inaccurate. It's
> not feasible to document issues with third-party milters.
"Note: some milters can cause mail to go to the Hold queue. If configuring a
new milter please make sure this is your desired behavior.” was the entirety of
what I was thinking.
> If one Milter implementation unilaterally changes the meaning of
> 'quarantine' then I will be grateful if someone fixes that in the
> Milter so that it becomes consistent with the protocol spec.
I don’t have the history there. I’m detecting there is some, but I just want
to make better code.
Stay safe,
-Dan
