On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Chris Naden wrote:
[snip]
> ><rant>
> >I've heard many people complain about the lack of documentation that comes
> >with qmail; I'd like to put in a contrary opinion. I've never seen so
> >completely documented a system. Everything is there. The only gotcha is
> >that, apart from the FAQ, nothing is repeated. The moral of the story is:
> >read through *all* the qmail docs quickly once, or at least read the FAQ.
> ></rant>
> >
>
> You are right again. After ppl have pointed me to the appropriate
> place (not all of which are easy to find if you're a relative
> novice in sysadmin terms) everything *is* in the docs. Understanding
> it once it's there is another matter. New sysadmin's have to learn
I wasn't meaning to come across as mad-at-you, and I hope you didn't take
it that way. There are many different right ways to configure qmail and
to find the one that's right for you requires that you understand how
qmail works. It's not difficult, but there is a lot of it. That's why I
suggested reading *all* the man pages; unless you're a slow reader, you
can do it in an evening. If you've even skimmed them all, you'll remember
vaguely what's there.
I admire Dan's documentation for coverage: everything's there. On the
other hand, something a bit more like the original Perl book, starting off
using it, then documenting commands and finally some cookbook-style
recipies might be easier to take. However, if you print /var/qmail/doc/*
and /var/qmail/man/cat*, and order it appropriately, you've almost got it.
But then you've got a book, effectively. [Everybody will appreciate it
when the qmail book is available.]
> somewhere. If they haven't the advantage of a degree, they have to
> learn from the friendly and helpful people who make up the internet
> community. Let's face it guys, it all works because you guys help
> out the new guys, who become experienced and help out more new guys.
> That's why we're a *community* right?
That's why I answered your original question; I do agree with you. On
the other hand, it does get old answering FAQs.
Anybody who's new to qmail, please do yourself and the list a favour:
read the FAQ, all of it.
[snip]
> Qmail documentation is impressive in it's comprehensiveness but
> it is a little less so in it's comprehension. It can be very difficult
> to understand what is being said, be it as it may that what is said
> is entirely accurate. One example of this is the sheer number of ppl
> (I was one and i@ve seen the thread recur several times just in the
> month I've been here) who read the setup info as instructing them to
> place virtual domains in rcpthosts, virtualdomains *and*locals*; the
> documentation isn't wrong, but it's quite easy to misunderstand.
I personally don't read it that way, but you're right that many peopl have
misunderstood. How about beefing up the man pages:
for qmail-send: for its description of locals to explicitly say that
virtual domains should *not* be placed in locals?
for qmail-smtpd: for its description of rcpthosts to say that it
should contain all the hosts in locals and virtualdomains plus
those hosts you act as MX for.
Actually, in stead of the latter suggestion, I'd prefer that there be
another control file: mxhosts, and drop rcpthosts, which is just
confusing everyone. Then we have simple explanations for what goes where.
> The fact that everything can be found and that some questions are
> stupid (the particular question I asked which prompted this thread
> happens to be one of them; if I'd re-read the FAQ rather than the
> list archives I'd have caught it myself) doesn't mean that ppl,
> particularly people new to the game like myself, are going to need
> *and*benefit*from* advice and help from more experienced users like
> yourselves.
Again, I agree with you that newcomers will need some help, and it's the
job of more experienced people to help them. (Imagine how much better the
real world would work if we used this thinking there, but I digress :-).
We just wish that more people would read the documentation, especially the
FAQ.
> Do, please, be tolerant and patient with us; we do learn, it's
Yeah, I'm getting snippy in my old age [smarten up Tom <whack-on-the-head>]
Sorry about that.
> just a little hard for us if we are rebutted and end up trying
> to learn in a vaccuum. Fortunately for *my* operations, that
> hasn't happned to me.. I pray it doesn't happen to anyone else here.
>
> ~cHris
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
