Le 28 mai 09 à 23:51, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 14:35 +0200, Axel Luttgens wrote:
[...]
That looks like a server configuration mistake.
No, it's just a Postfix system quickly and dirtily brought to life for
the sole purpose of testing deliver from within a MTA. ;-)
On that occasion, I just took Postfix' default behaviors for
illustrative purposes. But it could have been Sendmail, qmail, Exim...
as well, or even a very esoteric homegrown system: any of those
systems, especially the already operational and fine-tuned ones, have
precise expectations on how their native LDA behaves.
Replacing that LDA by another one is thus something far from benign
and to be done with care, if possible with the help of as much info as
possible about how the new LDA will behave.
Hence my investigations, then my dumb questions about deliver: how
does it behave, is that behavior configurable and if yes to what
extent, have I missed something in the docs or in the source code, and
so on.
[...]
At least, it would be nice to have a very precise description of how
deliver is supposed to behave when facing various conditions.
This would then be a documentation matter.
Maybe.. Although it can be summarized pretty easily:
- Invalid command line parameter gives EX_USAGE
- Invalid configuration gives EX_CONFIG
- User-over-quota optionally bounces or exits with EX_NOPERM
with a mention about the -e option and the quota_full_tempfail setting
- Anything else is EX_TEMPFAIL.
Fine!
I really believe that it would be worth to engrave that behavior
somewhere in the docs.
This could prove extremely useful to people considering to replace
their existing LDA in their existing setup, by making explicit some
points to take care of.
As a side-effect, this might also act as a reminder of the behaviors
that should not be altered in case of code rewriting.
Last but not least, no more irritating questions. ;-)
Thanks a lot,
Axel
