Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:10:32PM +0000, Thomas Arnett wrote:
>
> > Jeroen Geilman <jeroen <at> adaptr.nl> writes:
> > > I completely agree that non-delivery to a (presumably dependable) MDA
> > > should never error out, but I thought a soft solution would be better
> > > than choosing the more extreme route (of altering working code).
> >
> > I believe the code is not working as intended and documented. Please let me
> > know
> > if I have missed something.
>
> I don't think you have missed anything. The folks suggesting soft_bounce
> as a "solution" are not looking at the big picture.
>
> Wietse, if I understand correctly, wants to ensure that the issue is
> clearly defined, so we don't solve the wrong one, and is worth fixing.
>
> Not all minor bugs are worth fixing, the benefit may not outweigh the
> risk of unforseen consequences or implementation errors in the fix.
>
> Why does your Dovecot intermittently SIGBUS? Surely that's the real
> problem that needs fixing. (Yes, I would probably still change Postfix
> to treat killed processes as a transient condition, but I am a bit less
> conservative than Wietse).
I already updated Postfix a few days ago, but I don't have time
to roll out a new release yet.
Wietse
