On Sunday 06 November 2011 01:46:35 lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: > Zitat von David Southwell <ad...@vizion2000.net>: > > On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Simon Brereton wrote: > >> On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell <ad...@vizion2000.net> wrote: > >> > On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote: > >> >> David Southwell: > >> >> > Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He > >> >> > spotted the primary cause. It was he who spotted the extra " " > >> >> > before policyd-spf in master.cf which was in the part of the post > >> >> > you cut out. > >> >> > > >> >> > So you were right it was an error in the master.cf but noone else > >> >> > spotted it before Kamil made his contribution. > >> >> > >> >> You could have spotted it days ago with lsof/netstat which would > >> >> have told you immediately that postfix was not listening on the > >> >> socket. > >> >> > >> >> Wietse > >> > > >> > Typical Wietse response. Everyone could see postfix was not listening > >> > but it > >> > >> And Wietse was trying to get you to find out why - instead of making > >> random changes. He asked you at least twice to run netstat - did you > >> do it? > > > > yes - I had done it before wietse asked - it was too blindingly obvious > > everyone knew it was not starting. Wietse is too fond of being > > downright rude. > > > >> It would have saved you 18 hours and at least 3 long mails if > >> you had. Typically ungrateful response to Wietse's help is more like > >> it. People come on here, expect it him not only to write it, but keep > >> it secure and spot typgraphical errors in their own configs because > >> they're too lazy to look (and that laziness is exemplified by a > >> laziness to follow a simple diagnostic instruction). > > > > Misplaced critique. Like wietse you are jumping to conclusions. Assuming > > the worst rather than the best of people. The recomendation came after > > not before the act. > > > >> > took Kamil's careful scrutiny and knowledge to identify why - knowing > >> > why was what led to the solution. > >> > >> Which you'd have had much much earlier without the hand-holding had > >> you followed Wietse's first request to run netstat. > > > > Sorry but that is B******t! The information about the excess space was > > there -- Wietse just didn't see it unless he was deliberately > > concealing the fact that he knew the excess space was there. That could > > not be true because he would have known that netstat would not have > > revealed the fact theat there was > > an excess space in the file. What would therefore have been the purpose > > of running netstat? > > > >> > Diagnosis is valuable but without the ability to define the treatment > >> > the diagnosis is merely a matter of record. > >> > >> Only valuable if you follow the steps you're asked to perform. > >> Spoonfeeding and proof-reading your errors in your config files is not > >> diagnosis. > >> > >> > Clearly postfix is need of an intelligent parser that will to > >> > pinpoint errors such as this in master.cf and main.cf. That is > >> > because stupid computers are better at parsing chores than human > >> > beings. > >> > >> Postfix has such a parser - which is why the documentation points out > >> that lines should not start with a white-space. > > > > Humble humans acknowledge we make errors. Wise humans use stupid > > computers to perform tasks that people are not good at. Stupid humans > > tell other people they are stupid when they make mistakes and tell them > > RTFM! > > > > You are failing to distinguish between a diagnostic parser and an > > executive parser. An executive parser rejects incorrectly configured > > lines at runtime. A diagnostic parser would tell you that there is an > > excess space at a specific > > location. A really good executive parser would also log the location of > > incorrectly configured lines to facilitate the work of an administrator. > > > > I do not expect anyone to solve my problems. On the other hand I do > > not expect > > them to be gratuitously rude rather than helpfully constructive. IF > > Wietse is unable to restrain himself from repeated bouts of arrogant > > rudeness then, IMHO, he needs counselling. > > > > In this case Kemil spotted the error. That helped me spot other errors. > > Kemil was constructive IMHPO Wietse was plain rude. > > Another one for the kill-file... > While it might be true that there is room for improvment your tone is > plain rude. You eat the free meal and demand that it is cooked for > your taste. Take it or leave it. > > Andreas
That is plain B******t. I am making a constructive contribution which, if some thought and consideration were given to it, might substantially improve Postfix and make it much more administrator friendly. You may think that the way Postfix is currently put together is perfect. Well the togh message of the modern world is that nothing is perfect including Postfix's current system. Neither am I suggesting the proposal I put forward would make it perfect. However I do argue it might make it better. There is no demand here rather than a carefully composed argument and a recomendation. You may diagree with both. If you are unwilling or do not care to have an intelligent dialogue on the merits of an argument then I respectfully suggest you get out of the kitchen and leave it to those who are, perhaps, a little more open-minded.
