On 10/09/2014 08:25 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In any event, regardless of how this key sentence is construed, it
> self-evidently leaves open a rather obvious quetion: What happens,
> exactly, when the $max_use limit is exceeded? The document makes
> no effort at all to specify, leaving th
In message <20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
>> man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same prior
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
> man page resulted in matching _multiple_ things at the same priority/
> precedence level? For example, what if I had the following table:
>
> domain.tld
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:46:24AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> >Spawn launches a new {policy} process for each new {SMTP} connection.
>
> Thank you! I most certainly did not grasp that until just this moment.
No, I deliberately did not use the words you inse
On 09 Oct 2014, at 13:50 , Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> No one sensible would dispute your skill as a software developer,
> but I'll put my own understanding of the English language up against
> your's,
Funniest thing all day. Hurray for Skitt’s Law.
--
'I thought we could do it without anyone
I seem to have mislaid the note file in which I kept the build options that I
built postfix with, and I am planning on recompiling a new version of postfix
soon (It was supposed to be last month).
What can I look at to figure out what the build options were for the currently
installed version s
I just implemented two more compatibility breaks with
postfix-2.12-20141009. These are expected to be the last ones
before the Postfix 2.12 stable release (or whatever it will be
called).
- relay_domains default is changed from "$mydestination" to "" (empty).
- mynetwo
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
Wietse
In message <3jdmll1j7pzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> I'm asking you to explain your documentation, and specifically why
>> you have a different understanding of the word "use" that the vast
>
>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clie
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <3jdlhr1bzjzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>
> >Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >> OK, I'm reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the statement in
> >> question, which appears in the SMTPD_POLICY_README, and I'm sorry to
> >> say that I still find it almost
In message <3jdlhr1bzjzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> OK, I'm reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the statement in
>> question, which appears in the SMTPD_POLICY_README, and I'm sorry to
>> say that I still find it almost imponderably ambiguous.
>>
>> Plea
In message <20141009172354.gu13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>Spawn launches a new {policy} process for each new {SMTP} connection.
Thank you! I most certainly did not grasp that until just this moment.
>A policy server connection never outlives the smtpd(8) process that
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <3jdjvm2k00zj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>
> >Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >> Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
> >> comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
> >>
In message <3jdjvm2k00zj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
>> comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
>> handle 100 requests. (I guess that
In message <20141009163728.gt13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> In message <32139_1412843719_543648C7_32139_3580_1_543648C6.9050308@external
>.th
>> alesgroup.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:07:21AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Please do correct me if I'm wrong... I may be misunderstanding...
> but these additional possibilities you are describing would be
> available _only_ if the policy server is invoked by something
> other than spawn(8), correct?
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
> comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
> handle 100 requests. (I guess that this is one way of allowing for
> badly written policy servers that have, for example, memork leaks
>
Am 09.10.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
I wonder how many Postfix policy servers have been written to be
invoked other than via spawn(8). I have trouble imagining that any
have been, since just allowing them to be invoked by spawn(8)...
which automagically handles hooking up stdin t
In message <20141009152227.gq13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> As I understand it, a Postfix policy server is supposed to be reading
>> incoming requests from stdin.
>
>No, it is supposed to be accepting
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message
> <32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th
> alesgroup.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
> wrote:
>
> >Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit :
> >
> >Do you trie
In message <20141009141819.go13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
>> problem for me. And I guess that executing my policy server as
In message <32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th
alesgroup.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
wrote:
>Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit :
>
>Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access
>table (or a table for each
In message <3jd99m4nwtzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
>> PREPEND result that can be returned from policy servers
>> and/or from specific entries within an acces
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> The SMTPD_POLICY_README file says:
>
> "In case of trouble the policy server must not send a reply. Instead the
> server
> must log a warning and disconnect. Postfix will retry the request at some
> later
> time."
>
>
> Um
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
> problem for me. And I guess that executing my policy server as part of
> smtpd_data_restrictions will also allow me to turn back on the
> smtpd_delay_re
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:53:57PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > That delay, in and of itself is not really a problem for me. What
> > _is_ a bit of a problem is the fact that smtpd_delay_reject doesn't
> > merely cause anything listed under smtpd_sender_restrictions to be
> > delayed until such t
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
> PREPEND result that can be returned from policy servers
> and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table.
>
> It would be maximally convenient if the subject could be
> interpolated in th
How exactly does one "disconnect" from stdin? I mean other than by
calling exit() ?
Exiting is sufficient.
The SMTPD_POLICY_README file should be edited in a way so as to
make that clear. The current wording is quite entirely perplexing.
"Disconnect" is quite obviously the wrong word to us
Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a écrit :
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
PREPEND result that can be returned from policy servers
and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table.
It would be maximally convenient if the subject could be
i
29 matches
Mail list logo
