Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Can't we all just get along ? Fuck sake, does someone here thinks this thread is going anywhere ?

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > My anonymous friend, you need to accept *PEOPLE* write software. Those > little things like experience, skills, and even personality are present > in the output of programmers. Of course, but this was about his software, not him, and let's k

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:53 -0500 nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts > wrote: > >DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible > > within the very well known bounding limitations (ha

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > wrote: > > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. > >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > > work. In 'most' cases you will b

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

blah blah blah On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > wrote: > > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. > >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > > work. In 'most'

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for > negligable increases in saf

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:27:51AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: | Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. | | Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will | work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for | negligable increa

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom > wrote: > >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurg

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote: > What are you running? Exchange?? > > Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save > from most, but not all lost messages after a crash. > > Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

will you believe me if i restate your question and his answer? question: if i turn off the cache on the controller and the disk what is keeping rename from ensuring that the file is never lost answer: you can't actually know that the cache is shut off on the disk, so the question is moot. even

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> looming. I am trying to understand the technical issues, not You mean you're not just arguing because you have a burning need to be right on the intertruck due to personal issues? Color me surprised.

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:57 PM, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one >> more time. > > No, you didn't, see below. yes, he did. you're confusing "i didn't hear what i wanted to hear" with "i

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: >DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible within the > very well known bounding limitations (hardware, compilers, operating > systems, file system code, and s

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 22:33:20 nixlists wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom > >> > wrote: > >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all > >> > over again. Take your toy mail implementa

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one > more time. No, you didn't, see below. This thread started here: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126435421227560&w=2 After I replied to that message (specifically

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> There is no certainty. >>> There is only belief. >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Brad Tilley wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > >> Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see >> the >> problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about >> the >> infallibility of his sof

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:47 PM, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that >> the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses >> gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of >> helping me

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists > > wrote: > > > > > > > There is no certainty. > > There is only belief. > > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins ear

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one more time. You can't trust one million lines of code between your application and the physical hardware to all be perfect and guarantee you anything more than "best effort". That includes your hyperbole. Now you draw your concl

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Nobody debated his ability to write code. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:30:47PM -0500, Brad Tilley wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > > > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see > > the > > problem as arising from a statement made by a M

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that > the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses > gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of > helping me compose interview questions to weed out undesirable job ap

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see > the > problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about > the > infallibility of his software when used with certain filesystems. > > It is unde

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote: | On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert | wrote: | > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: | >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom | wrote: | >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurg

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over >> > again. Take your toy mail implementation and

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over > > again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. > > You are still refusing to give a direct

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over > again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. You are still refusing to give a direct answer to a direct question. How's that not ignorant? I wonder why

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

wc -l the code and tell me again how that makes you feel. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:48:59PM +, nixlists wrote: > Just to remind: > > rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists, > it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is, >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote: > What are you running? Exchange?? > > Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

What are you running? Exchange?? Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save from most, but not all lost messages after a crash. Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer the question for the simplest case - we've already decided that every RA

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Just to remind: rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists, it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is, both directories or both non-directories), and must reside on the same file system. rename() guarantees that if to

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > > > There is no certainty. > There is only belief. Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see the problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On a completely unrelated note, I'm glad I came up with rules to redirect all smtpd related mails to my phone ... smart idea ... :-) Gilles On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:20:24AM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > > > >> provided that the controller

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > >> provided that the controller is configured not to write-back cache, > >> the drives are configured not to write-back cache, the FS is > >> mounted 'sync'. No softupdates. Let's not divert this to something > >> tangential and unrelated. I'll

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Ben Calvert wrote: > On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote: > > > > I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > > controller or drives > > really? how sure

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote: > > I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > controller or drives really? how sure of this are you? let's poll the population of misc@ how many administrat

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:46PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >> >> will run a mail server with write-back c

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, nixlists wrote: > Let's all roll-over and die - we might die any second anyway because > nothing is guaranteed, so why stay alive? Are thousands of people > running mail servers losing messages in crashes all the time, and are > unaware of it? Hopefully the peopl

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:46PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > >> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > >> controller or drives (well, maybe w

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Nick Holland wrote: > nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either controller or drive

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >>> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >>> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either >>> controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say >>> again

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either >> controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say >> again that batteries fail t

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say > again that batteries fail too). You seem to be taking what I wrote out > of context, or

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg >> wrote: >> > In message , >> > Marco Peereboom wrote >> >> You can

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg > wrote: > > In message , > > Marco Peereboom wrote > >> You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> When configured as documented - no controller write-back cache (maybe > with a battery back-up, but batteries fail too), no drive write-back > cache, no async mounts, no known buggy stuff. > > Which hardware??? Could someone at least point out one example of such > hardware? > > I, and, I am sur

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg wrote: > In message , > Marco Peereboom wrote >> You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does >> what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof

rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

In message , Marco Peereboom wrote > You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does > what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof is > naive at best. Hmm. Our rename(2) man page currently says:

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Dempsky wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: >> So what does it mean for a single byte write to be atomic? > > That some bits in a byte won't be updated without other bits being > updated as well. Considering how much extra work a

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

I said it before if software people weren't so dangeorous they'd be adorable. I haven't read his bs and couldn't me arsed to; your sneak preview tells me everything I have to know about him. But don't believe me to read the block sorting algorithm. Or the SCSI spec that asserts that ios co

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > So what does it mean for a single byte write to be atomic? That some bits in a byte won't be updated without other bits being updated as well.

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM, nixlists wrote: > qmail's author says "Queue reliability demands that single-byte writes > be atomic. This is true for a fixed-block filesystem such as UFS, and > for a logging > filesystem such as LFS." I hope that doesn't mean what I interpret it to mean, becaus

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On 16/01/2010, at 11:27 AM, nixlists wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gilles Chehade wrote:>> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on the BSD FFS and most of its variants. " smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during writes, then co

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during writes, >> then commiting messages (all of them, including bounces) to the real >> queue using an atomic rename. after a successful rename, smtpd tells >> the client it accept

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gilles Chehade wrote:>> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on >> the BSD FFS and most of its variants. " >> > > smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during writes, > then commiting messages (all of them, including

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM, nixlists wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > ... More like does OpenBSD have a similar reliability feature that qmail does - pertaining to writing messages into

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:22:56AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:55:30AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko > > > wrote: > > > > On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote:

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:55:30AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko > > wrote: > > > On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote: > > >> Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS withou

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

I am familiar with DJB's writings on queue structure and others. Fundamentally, OpenSMTPD makes use of file system atomic operations similarly to qmail in order to achieve the same goal, the difference lies in directory hierarchy organization which that is of secondary importance. But I believe Ma

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010 09:41:46, Gilles Chehade a icrit : > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it > > shall be fully integrated into OpenBSD ? > > > > Thanks. > > actual state ?

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:41:46 +0100 Gilles Chehade wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and > > when it shall be fully integrated into OpenBSD ? > > > > Thanks. > > > > actual sta

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko > wrote: > > On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote: > >> Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without > >> softupdates? What about with softupdates? > >> > >> http://cr.yp.

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

I don't think that someone tries to stop you with tests of smtpd like '# smtpctl show queue' or '# ls -l /var/spool/smtpd/queue' with/without softupdates and check outputs and e-mails in queue. Eg. I wasn't sure if it's safe to remove messages from queue in case that my smtpd is set onfly for local

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM, nixlists wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote: ... >>> More like does OpenBSD have a similar reliability feature that qmail >>> does - pertaining to writing messages into the queue? ... > No offense, but I don't think the question was

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote: > Hi All, > > Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it shall > be fully integrated into OpenBSD ? > > Thanks. > actual state ? work in progress, do not use in production, you will lose your jo

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote: >> >> qmail tries to be very careful that a message is on the disk. >> >> Does OpenSMTPD do this? The answer could be "yes" or "no". How is that >> nonsensical? >> >> Thanks! >> >> > > Only very big fool can write e-mail SW which don't try to ha

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

> qmail tries to be very careful that a message is on the disk. > > Does OpenSMTPD do this? The answer could be "yes" or "no". How is that > nonsensical? > > Thanks! > > Only very big fool can write e-mail SW which don't try to have messages on the disk ;-)

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, nixlists wrote: > No offense, but I don't think the question was understood. qmail's > qmail-queue does interesting, and a bit complicated things to deal > with crashes while a message is being queued. See here: > http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/infosys/mail/qmail/qmail-ma

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists wrote: >> >> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists wrote: > >> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? > >> Reliaibility-wise? > >> > >> "qmail's queue, except for

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists wrote: >> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? >> Reliaibility-wise? >> >> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on >> the BSD FFS and most of

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:42:07PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ben Calvert wrote: > > > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ben Calvert wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? >>> Reliaibility-wise? >>> >>> "qmail's queue, excep

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> >> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? >> Reliaibility-wise? >> >> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on >> the BSD FFS a

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko > wrote: > > On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote: > >> Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without > >> softupdates? What about with softupdates? > >> > >> http://cr.yp.

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists wrote: > Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? > Reliaibility-wise? > > "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on > the BSD FFS and most of its variants. " Since the point of a mail server is to not

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko wrote: > On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote: >> Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without >> softupdates? What about with softupdates? >> >> http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html > > the very link you just provided contai

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On 1/14/10, nixlists wrote: > Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without > softupdates? What about with softupdates? > > http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html the very link you just provided contains the following sentence: Do not use async or softupdates filesys

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

If you use softupdates you assume certain risks. What the fruit does it have to do with smtpd? On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:41:25PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without > softupdates? What about with softupdates? > > http://cr.yp.to/qmail/fa

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without softupdates? What about with softupdates? http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html

Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Jean-Francois wrote: > Hi All, > > Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it shall > be fully integrated into OpenBSD ? > > Thanks. You can keep an eye on its development by tracking commits on the CVS repository. I cant tell as I am

OpenSMTPd actual development and integration

Hi All, Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it shall be fully integrated into OpenBSD ? Thanks.