On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 03:31:18PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Henning Brauer wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:18:28PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > > No, please use 0301. Neither 0501 nor the additional patches for it are as > > > > stable as 0301. > > > What known issues are there with 0501 ? > > Already explained it, aside from a thousand hits in the archives. "Life with > > qmail-ldap" contains the archive's URL. > I know where's the archive ... > Reviewing last 3 months postings, I've found the following problems > mentioned: > > - objectclass + catchall problem > - deliveryProgramPath not allowing ./ > - 2 letters long addresses > - posts to <nothing_here>@domain silently being dropped away > - dash-trick uninitialised variables - correected in 0306 ? yes, fixed there. The problem was existant for many many months and nobody discovered it, uninitialized variables seem to have value 0 on nearly all systems - the problem here is "nearly", we finally found one where it had another value and triggered the problem. > - deliverymode=reply,localdeliver - crashes Not all combinations of deliverymode work right now, this needs a bit more rework. I don't know how far Andre and Claudio did fix the problems, I'm planning to dig further into this area when the next patch arrives. > Hmm, is it all ? Are there really all bugs listed above in 20010501 ? All known at least. > Did I miss anything ? > Why not to start issue tracking system (like OpenLDAP's) ? It would save > many people's time... This is IMHO a good idea, as well as a public CVS would be - the latter is impossible due to Dan's licensing, unfortunately. -- * Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de * * Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany * Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
