On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:05:50AM -0600, Curtis wrote:
> I'm still trying to understand why mail would be lost. Since it would be
> impossible for the Postfix sendmail command to overwrite one of these files
> due to a filename conflict (we write the files using filenames that would
> never be used by Postfix), are you saying that the risk of mail loss comes
> because Postfix might use the same inode as one of these existing files?
> Doesn't postfix use some type of system call to retrieve an inode number
> that is not already in use?
There's a difference between what will happen under the current
implementation of Postfix, and what is guaranteed to happen by
documentation, ...
> > > > 2) No pickup daemon and no postsuper command, otherwise pickup will
> > > > read incomplete files and throw them away, or it will make
> > > > duplicate deliveries as files get renamed.
>
>
> So the assertion that has been made here in the past (not by you) about
> creating the file using mode 0600 to prevent pickup from seeing incomplete
> files is false?
The approach you have taken, will not collide with the current Postfix
*implementation*, provided you don't run "postsuper" and your code at
the same time. If "postsuper" (which runs durin "reload") is to be
allowed to race against your code, your mode 0700 file names have to
match the usual Postfix hex file names:
<usec-5-hex-digits><inode-hex-digits>
this is an undocumented interface, so you have to be willing to review
any Postfix release for compatibility prior to deployment.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
