On 09/28/2014 04:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Would an updated postfinger command help?
Would it be asking too much for a simple -v (or -V) flag to be added to
postconf, and if possible, the "postfix" binary, and other binaries
included with postfix that would output something like the following:
On 9/29/2014 9:02 AM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:13:38AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 9/28/2014 3:01 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>>> Yes, it’s (postfinger) a separate package.
>> Yeah, and unavailable in gentoo repo... :(
> It is a shell script. You can just download and run i
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:13:38AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 9/28/2014 3:01 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> > Yes, it’s (postfinger) a separate package.
>
> Yeah, and unavailable in gentoo repo... :(
It is a shell script. You can just download and run it on your system.
--
Eray
On 9/28/2014 3:01 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> Yes, it’s (postfinger) a separate package.
Yeah, and unavailable in gentoo repo... :(
> On 28 Sep 2014, at 09:53 , Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> On 9/28/2014 10:57 AM, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2014, at 09:19 , Charles Marcus wrote:
On 9/27/2014 11:07 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
>> Would an updated postfinger command help? Wietse
We
On 9/28/2014 10:57 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2014, at 09:19 , Charles Marcus wrote:
>> > On 9/27/2014 11:07 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
>> > wrote:
>>> >> Would an updated postfinger command help? Wietse
>> >
>> > Well... if it could provide the output I described, then cert
On 27 Sep 2014, at 09:19 , Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 9/27/2014 11:07 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
> wrote:
>> Would an updated postfinger command help? Wietse
>
> Well... if it could provide the output I described, then certainly. The
> suggestion for a new command was just to il
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > > > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just usin
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just using
> >
> > postconf does not suppress parameters based on string compariso
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:51:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > In other respects, is the rest of the patch sound (correct and
> > useful)? I am not advocating that the patch be adopted, just using
>
> postconf does not suppress parameters based on string comparison.
> Instead, suppression is
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > +if ((config_dir = safe_getenv(CONF_ENV_PATH)) != 0 &&
> > > + strcmp(config_dir, DEF_CONFIG_DIR) != 0) {
> >
> > I prefer not to lie in software. Thus, config_dir will show up in
> > "postconf -n" outp
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > +if ((config_dir = safe_getenv(CONF_ENV_PATH)) != 0 &&
> > +strcmp(config_dir, DEF_CONFIG_DIR) != 0) {
>
> I prefer not to lie in software. Thus, config_dir will show up in
> "postconf -n" output when there is any override
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:41:08AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>
> > you read my mind. thanks for this detail.
>
> If nevertheless it is desirable to have "postconf -n" suppress any
> "external" value of "config_directory" for the primary instance,
> then the patch below ma
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:41:08AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> you read my mind. thanks for this detail.
If nevertheless it is desirable to have "postconf -n" suppress any
"external" value of "config_directory" for the primary instance,
then the patch below may do the job. It is not clear
On Sep 27, 2014, at 11.20, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:42:27AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>>> [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_directory
>>> config_directory = /etc/postfix
>>
>> You're welcome to fix that. I'm now working on other things,
>> supporting p
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.32, Wietse Venema wrote:
> b...@bitrate.net:
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
>>> the version, release date, and
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:42:27AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_directory
> > config_directory = /etc/postfix
>
> You're welcome to fix that. I'm now working on other things,
> supporting per-milter and per-policy service settings.
There's a subtle
On 9/27/2014 11:07 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
Would an updated postfinger command help? Wietse
Well... if it could provide the output I described, then certainly. The
suggestion for a new command was just to illustrate I was saying it
didn't have to be a postconf command
On Sep 27, 2014, at 10.42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in setti
Charles Marcus:
> On 9/27/2014 7:48 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
> wrote:
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on.
>
> Thanks Wietse...
>
> Plea
On 9/27/2014 7:48 AM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
the version, release date, and so on.
Thanks Wietse...
Please understand that what follows is jus
li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> i suppose the question was why it is part of "postconf -n"
> >> output while it is not mentioned in "main.cf" and so should
> >> only appear in "postconf -d"
> >>
> >> [root@mail-gw:~]$ cat main.cf | grep config_directory
> >> [root@mail-gw:~]$ postconf -n | grep config_direc
Am 27.09.2014 um 16:42 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>> Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
>>> b...@bitrate.net:
On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> configuration file, -d is
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on
li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > b...@bitrate.net:
> >> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> >>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> >>> the
Am 27.09.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> b...@bitrate.net:
>> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
>>> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
>>> the version, release date, and so o
b...@bitrate.net:
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> > configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> > the version, release date, and so on.
>
> this reminds me - some time long ago, i ha
On Sep 27, 2014, at 07.48, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
> configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
> the version, release date, and so on.
this reminds me - some time long ago, i happened to notice that
config_di
Use "postconf -d", not "postconf -n". -n is for settings in the
configuration file, -d is for the built-in settings which include
the version, release date, and so on.
Wietse
Charles Marcus:
> I asked a long time ago if the postfix version could be added to the
> postconf -n output (like
I asked a long time ago if the postfix version could be added to the
postconf -n output (like dovecot does), but was told it wasn't possible
for some technical reason I didn't understand...
On 9/26/2014 9:42 PM, Karl-Philipp wrote:
Hi together,
In order to figure out the version of a program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/09/14 12:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:50:24AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> .> In order to figure out the version of a program it is common
>> to make
>>> the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the
>>
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 03:50:24AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> .> In order to figure out the version of a program it is common to make
> >the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the `--version`
> >option. The `postfix` binary should provide it as well.
Sorry, Postfix does not suppo
On September 27, 2014 3:42:50 AM Karl-Philipp wrote:
.> In order to figure out the version of a program it is common to make
the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the `--version`
option. The `postfix` binary should provide it as well.
Stop postfix, see syslog, postfix version xx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi together,
In order to figure out the version of a program it is common to make
the binary print it to stdout if it is invoked with the `--version`
option. The `postfix` binary should provide it as well.
- -Kalle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versio
34 matches
Mail list logo
