Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
Magnus Bodin writes: A future qmail needs a qmail-lint shipped with it. Note: I did *not* pay Magnus to say that. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | Government is the Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good tradition of the multiple qmail conf files) But what about precedence as Johan mentioned earier? (e.g. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I don't think it's a difficult problem to solve. There's an existing set of config. file that can cause conflict: locals and virtualdomains. The issue was solved in that case by stating clearly in the docs that locals is processed first and so will win in a conflict situation. My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed first, thereby winning in any conflict situation. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:00:49AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: Hi! There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's code. I have released a new version, available from http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick with the mailroutes design for now, though :- One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use smtproutes instead of mailroutes? Because the name is too confining... It implies smtp. mail is more generic :) But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good tradition of the multiple qmail conf files) There can be only one! ;) Seriously, if we need to change names, then use a single file. It's a precedence nightmare managing multiple files... -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best... I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though. On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:36:25AM +, James Raftery wrote: My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed first, thereby winning in any conflict situation. -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:21:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best... I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though. My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed first, thereby winning in any conflict situation. There may be situations when we want to force smtp over qmtp, and that's not possible with the two-files design if there's a wildcard in qmtproutes. It's an off chance that somebody would want to do this, but I feel uncomfortable about doing it... -Johan -- Johan Almqvist http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ PGP signature
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
Hi My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. Best regards. On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:42:07PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:21:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best... I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though. My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed first, thereby winning in any conflict situation. There may be situations when we want to force smtp over qmtp, and that's not possible with the two-files design if there's a wildcard in qmtproutes. It's an off chance that somebody would want to do this, but I feel uncomfortable about doing it... -Johan -- Johan Almqvist http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. That I can accept. mailroutes (for smtp and qmtp routes) and smtproutes, mailroutes has priority over smtproutes? Everyone OK with that? -Johan -- Johan Almqvist http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ PGP signature
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. That I can accept. mailroutes (for smtp and qmtp routes) and smtproutes, mailroutes has priority over smtproutes? No, opposite: smtproutes has priority over mailroutes. Backwards compatibility... Everyone OK with that? I think you will be ok, because people who want two files can use mailroutes for qmtproutes... :) Summary: - smtproutes is processed. If found there, use it and stop. - mailroutes is processed. this is backwards compatible. If you have confliting rules, then remove the confliting rules from smtproutes and use mailroutes. Best regards. -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you to rename the file.
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you to rename the file. and why change it? is it broken? -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead. backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read. Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you to rename the file. and why change it? is it broken? Its broken with respect to QMTP support, yes. I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:33:48PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote: I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes. A symlink get's the job done, granted. But I would prefer that the patch doesn't change the current smtproutes behaviour if we can. Image this: - i have a stock qmail server with a smtproutes; - i decide that I want to use qmtp with mxps - i patch qmail with Russell's or Johan patch - suddenly, my smtproutes stop working... because I forgot to rename the smtproutes file. Or imagine: - I have a stock qmail server with smtproutes, - I decide that I want to use QMTP, - I setup an appropriate mailroutes file, - It doesn't work, because I forgot to patch qmail. Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the first? Why give smtproutes priority? If mailroutes doesn't exist than smtproutes will be used anyway, if smtproutes support is kept. It gives you a clean upgrade path , and doesn't force you to change the configuratio (mv smtproutes mailroutes) just because you patched qmail... Why must every outdated configuration be supported because some people can reconcile using patch -p1 johans-patch but can't reconcile mv onecontrolfile anothercontrolfile? People should be following directions in README, INSTALL, and UPGRADE. My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best not to force changes on a working situation. Patches always change a working situation, by definition.
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote: Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you to rename the file. Is Dan putting out a 1.04? I thought he was working on qmail2. Did I miss something? I don't know, but I was citing such a hypothetical example to make my point.
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:48:26AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote: Or imagine: - I have a stock qmail server with smtproutes, - I decide that I want to use QMTP, - I setup an appropriate mailroutes file, - It doesn't work, because I forgot to patch qmail. That's not a problem with the patch :) That's a problem with qmail, not having support for qmtp builtin :) Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the first? Why give smtproutes priority? If mailroutes doesn't exist than smtproutes will be used anyway, if smtproutes support is kept. Johan patch, as far as I've read, does not read smtproutes anymore. Why must every outdated configuration be supported because some people can reconcile using patch -p1 johans-patch but can't reconcile mv onecontrolfile anothercontrolfile? People should be following directions in README, INSTALL, and UPGRADE. Because the patch is not official qmail. A patch that is not official qmail, should not be incompatible with previous working configuration of qmail. Even a big patch like qmail-ldap did that. It added several features (the patch is 1/3 of qmail in size) and a normal configuration of qmail still works. My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best not to force changes on a working situation. Patches always change a working situation, by definition. "working situation" no. they change features available. Best regards, -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
[smtproutes vs mailroutes] my point of view: if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes against stock qmail. if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README. There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case, but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de| Germany
FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
Hi! There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's code. I have released a new version, available from http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick with the mailroutes design for now, though :- -Johan -- Johan Almqvist http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ PGP signature
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: Hi! There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's code. I have released a new version, available from http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick with the mailroutes design for now, though :- One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use smtproutes instead of mailroutes? -- Pedro Melo Cunha - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal http://www.novis.pt/ Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pa. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7 / 1050-094 Lisboa tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:00:49AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: Hi! There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's code. I have released a new version, available from http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick with the mailroutes design for now, though :- One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use smtproutes instead of mailroutes? Because the name is too confining... It implies smtp. mail is more generic :) But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good tradition of the multiple qmail conf files) RC -- +--- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis Telecom - Engenharia ISP / Rede Tcnica | P. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7 E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459 PGP signature
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use smtproutes instead of mailroutes? Because the name is too confining... It implies smtp. mail is more generic :) But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good tradition of the multiple qmail conf files) But what about precedence as Johan mentioned earier? (e.g. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) What could be done is to use BOTH smtproutes and mailroutes. Then it's sort of backwards compatible. smtproutes will be read first. Then mailroutes. I don't have an opinion about precedence here, but at least a smtproutes-file would not be ignored. Which is most important. A future qmail needs a qmail-lint shipped with it. As djbdns today ships with nice tools like dnstrace, there is a definitive need for trace/lint-tools for qmail. /magnus -- http://x42.com/
