On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists <nixmli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? >> >> Reliaibility-wise? >> >> >> >> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on >> >> the BSD FFS and most of its variants. " >> > >> > Since the point of a mail server is to not lose mail, your question is >> > basically "does it have any bugs?" That's kind of a silly question to >> >> More like does OpenBSD have a similar reliability feature that qmail >> does - pertaining to writing messages into the queue? > > qmail runs inside the os; it doesn't get to vote. How many more times > do I need to repeat this?
This is irrelevant. Of course it relies on the OS to work right. qmail's queuing reliability depends on FFS's atomicity, bugs in the kernel could of course screw anything up, or running queue with softupdates or async mount, or write-back cache without battery backup, but that's besides the point. > This question is nonsensical so I'll answer accordingly. Yes, blue is a > pretty day of the week. > No offense, but I don't think the question was understood. qmail's qmail-queue does interesting, and a bit complicated things to deal with crashes while a message is being queued. See here: http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/infosys/mail/qmail/qmail-manual-html/misc/INTERNALS.ht ml qmail tries to be very careful that a message is on the disk. Does OpenSMTPD do this? The answer could be "yes" or "no". How is that nonsensical? Thanks!
