On 9/18/2013 6:50 PM, Voytek wrote: > Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote: >> On 9/18/2013 9:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> Stan Hoeppner: >>>>> for other users, the old-syntax was working, now updated >>>> >>>> That's strange. Usually when new syntax is introduced the old >> syntax is >>>> removed and no longer works. 2.3 -> 2.6 seems a rather long grace >>>> period. Does the pre 2.3 syntax still work today? >>> >>> With Postfix, support for old syntax is removed from documentation, >>> but usually remains in the code. Examples are >> "reject_unknown_hostname" >>> and the use of an SMTPD access map without "check_mumble_access". Old >>> syntax is removed when maintaining it becomes a problem. >>> >>> Wietse >> >> >> On 9/18/2013 9:06 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> With parameter renames, Postfix introduces backwards compatible >>> defaults: >>> >>> new_name = $old_name >>> >>> with restriction class names the old form is left in place. >>> Incompatible changes are avoided whenever possible. >> >> >> Thank you both for the explanation. I've always updated my syntax soon >> after changes are made and never really tested this. Sorry for adding >> noise to the thread. >> >> -- >> Stan > > the fact that I have 'old syntax' in the main.cf , does that imply that at > some point, instead of upgrading postfix, a new installation was done, and > old config files copied across? (which is a distinct possibility when server > was 'moved' from physical to vps), just curious. > > Thanks for all the help,
Wietse can answer this definitively. I can only relay my experience, which is, using the Debian Postfix packages for many years, it does not appear that the upgrade process walks main.cf and updates syntax. I do recall that somewhere around 2.9 Wietse added code to check for some configuration related issues but I don't recall the specifics. Maybe he can provide a more thorough answer. -- Stan
