From owner-freebsd-current Mon Oct 9 7: 1: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from neo.skynet.be (neo.skynet.be [195.238.2.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE1F37B502; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by neo.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F596CAE; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:00:08 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20001008212246.856EF1C2AB@hun.org> References: <20001008143111.D539@puck.firepipe.net>, , <20001008070212.04A381C2AB@hun.org> <20001008212246.856EF1C2AB@hun.org> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:58:19 +0200 To: attila! , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: POSTFIX-- Wietse: tweak and go! --pkg & port: both duds Cc: Will Andrews Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 9:22 PM +0000 2000/10/8, attila! wrote: > I look at 'snapshots' philosophically; if I willingly track > FreeBSD-5.0-current, I am obviously accustomed to the risks > therein. Understood. I just wanted to point out the philosophical differences from the postfix perspective, and thought that it was important that this be made explicit. > 20001001 is the most current which Wietse is now running and > stating that it is 'production quality'. Obviously, I will > port 20001001 this afternoon! No, 20001005 is the latest snapshot I know of, and appears to be what Wietse is running himself: $ telnet spike.porcupine.org. 25 Trying 168.100.189.2... Connected to spike.porcupine.org. Escape character is '^]'. 220 spike.porcupine.org ESMTP Postfix (Snapshot-20001005) quit 221 Bye Connection closed by foreign host. However, I would not be too surprised if what he was running is actually slightly later than this (i.e., another snapshot in progress), and it just identifies itself as Snapshot-20001005. > Why not consider the use of the mysql interface which > provides dynamic aliasing? The machines where I run this code don't strictly need a MySQL interface for aliases. Although we do keep our internal aliases in a MySQL database, I do not believe that it is in a format that would be suitable for use with postfix, and therefore I'd have to create yet another MySQL database that *was* in the proper format. This would likely lead to synchronization problems, etc.... -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124 Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels http://www.skynet.be || Belgium "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message