On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:05 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
<wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:11 PM -0500 Wietse Venema
> <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Wietse,
>
> I noted in my initial email why this is not desirable solution.
I ignored your objection, because it made no sense to me. I have
learned that is it better to ignore things that make no sense to
me, than to fight them in a debate.
I'm not sure why it made no sense to you. It's quite well explained and
logical.
> > # postconf -# policy_time_limit
> >
> > After:
> >
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> > # policy_time_limit = foo
> > # policy_time_limit = bar
>
> The problem with this approach is that if you later re-enable the
> policy, it will not remove the #'d out entries. Over time, you could
> theoretically end up with numerous #'d entries for the parameter.
Sorry, feature requests based on theoretical scenarios do not
convince me.
This is most definitely not a theoretical scenario. In fact, it is quite
trivial to produce. In addition, the postconf -# option is at best a hack.
Even the man page notes there's no "reverse operation", which clearly
illustrates it is at best a hack.
It was changes made to postfix that created the entire issue that now exists
in the first place. I do not think it unreasonable or something that makes
"no sense" to ask that a method for fixing an issue that was created because
of changes you made to postfix be implemented in a future release.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
Zimbra, Inc
A Division of VMware, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Why cant you do it by hand???
