> On Mar 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
>
> Dan Mahoney:
>> I?ve been on the project for a few days. I?m feeling a lot of
>> vitriol here. Please don?t shoot the messenger.
>
> The natural response would be to push back - fix the milter (the
> root cause of the problem) instead of the code that talks to it.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Instead of documenting the current state, I think it is better to
> a) fix the milter, or if that does not work out, to b) add a
> workaround feature to Postfix code. My impression is that we are
> still in stage a).
>
>>> 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.
>
> I would be gratefuil if you can get this addressed in the Milter.
>
> Please keep us informed of what happens. If it really does not work
> out then we can look into b) add a feature to Postfix stable releases.
> But the bar is high for changes to stable releases.
This fix has been merged to the opendmarc “Develop” branch as of a few minutes
ago and will likely be in a 1.4.1 that comes out in the next few weeks, and
will default to *not* quaranting the mail. The option will be called
HoldQuarantinedMessages (boolean option, default false).
Thanks to anyone who responded with further info.
Best,
-Dan
