On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 07:59:28PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> I think the manual is at best misleading in this statement.
This thread is over I think...
--
Viktor.
On 06/04/2010 03:25 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Moe:
The docs for 'myhostname' even explicitly state "The default is to use
the fully-qualified domain name from gethostname()", which makes no
sense as gethostname() does not normally return a FQDN.
Only a brain-damaged person would claim
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
> This is entirely inappropriate and unnecessary.
Well, I must admit, I got heated up a bit in this discussion, and should have
rethinked my words more before posting.
Sorry about that, and my apologies to Moe.
--
MfG Jan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
Victor Duchovni put forth on 6/3/2010 8:29 PM:
> And Stan also.
As usual, you're right Victor. My apologies to Moe for the "brain damaged"
comment. Unprofessional and uncalled for.
Sorry Moe.
--
Stan
Moe put forth on 6/3/2010 8:10 PM:
> So with that, no hard feelings. I'll make sure to not bother
> you guys again.
No hard feelings intended Moe.
What I just can't wrap my small brain around is how the pain and effort to
insert 'myhostname = mx1.example.com' into main.cf is greater than the pai
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Moe:
>> The docs for 'myhostname' even explicitly state "The default is to use
>> the fully-qualified domain name from gethostname()", which makes no
>> sense as gethostname() does not normally return a FQDN.
>
> Only a brain-damaged person would claim that Postfix promises
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:57:51AM +0200, Jan Kohnert wrote:
> Maybe it got lost due to the language, but: my comment was just sarcasm.
> Only brain-damaged users would remove neccessary parameters out off the
> config file while expecting things to work somehow out-of-the-box by
> magic.
This is
Moe:
> The docs for 'myhostname' even explicitly state "The default is to use
> the fully-qualified domain name from gethostname()", which makes no
> sense as gethostname() does not normally return a FQDN.
Only a brain-damaged person would claim that Postfix promises
domain auto-detection.
Any co
Jan Kohnert wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner schrieb:
>> Jan Kohnert put forth on 6/3/2010 5:55 PM:
>>> Or let the Debian people write that patch for their version, as their
>>> users are apparently the only ones who comlain and such a fix could
>>> probably mess up more postfix-experienced users... ;)
>> Pl
Stan Hoeppner schrieb:
> Jan Kohnert put forth on 6/3/2010 5:55 PM:
> > Or let the Debian people write that patch for their version, as their
> > users are apparently the only ones who comlain and such a fix could
> > probably mess up more postfix-experienced users... ;)
>
> Please don't paint the
Jan Kohnert put forth on 6/3/2010 5:55 PM:
> Or let the Debian people write that patch for their version, as their users
> are apparently the only ones who comlain and such a fix could probably mess
> up
> more postfix-experienced users... ;)
Please don't paint the Debian user base with such a
Victor Duchovni schrieb:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:36:52PM +0200, Moe wrote:
> > My point is: When 'myhostname' and 'mydomainname' are left out of
> > main.cf then postfix makes an attempt to auto-detect them.
>
> These are MTA configuration variables.
And there would also be the fix in Postfi
Jim Wright wrote (on Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 04:47:05PM -0500):
> On Jun 3, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Moe wrote:
>
> > My point is: When 'myhostname' and 'mydomainname' are left out of main.cf
> > then postfix makes an attempt to auto-detect them.
>
> There's your problem. Fix that. See my original reply
On Jun 3, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Moe wrote:
> My point is: When 'myhostname' and 'mydomainname' are left out of main.cf
> then postfix makes an attempt to auto-detect them.
There's your problem. Fix that. See my original reply at the start of this
thread.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:36:52PM +0200, Moe wrote:
> My point is: When 'myhostname' and 'mydomainname' are left out of
> main.cf then postfix makes an attempt to auto-detect them.
These are MTA configuration variables.
> This auto-detection does not currently follow what other tools like
> 'ho
If you want Postfix to use a some value other than the default
("localdomain" or the kernel domain name), then you must update
the appropriate Postfix configuration parameter.
If you object to the idea of having to update a Postfix configuration
parameter, then you must not use Postfix.
W
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:32:16PM +0200, Moe wrote:
> Remember we're talking about the case of auto-detection here
> - if someone is not willing to take that risk then they should hardcode
> 'myhostname' and 'mydomainname' in main.cf, no?
>
> Moreover I'd suggest that postfix may very well accep
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:47PM -0400, Matt Hayes wrote:
>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>>
>> Now, I'm not all that bright on how postfix sorts out the hostname, and
>> frankly, I don't care, but I don't like people saying its a 'bug' when
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:26:16PM +0200, Moe wrote:
> * Make sure /etc/hosts has something like:
> 127.0.0.1 tail.call tail
>
> * 'hostname' should return: tail
> * 'hostname -f' should now return: tail.call
> * 'postconf -d mydomain' will still return: localdomain
Which is correct behaviour.
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Moe:
>> The right way, as explained by Mike Paul in that ticket, would be to
>> call gethostbyname() on the return value of gethostname() and then split
>> the result of *that* into hostname and domainname.
>
> That would be AN INCREDIBLY STUPID IDEA, causing all mail proces
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Moe:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Matt Hayes:
Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
postfix and referencing th
Moe:
> The right way, as explained by Mike Paul in that ticket, would be to
> call gethostbyname() on the return value of gethostname() and then split
> the result of *that* into hostname and domainname.
That would be AN INCREDIBLY STUPID IDEA, causing all mail processes
to hang when the network i
Moe:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Matt Hayes:
> >> Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
> >> this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
> >> postfix and referencing this:
> >>
> >> http://bugs.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 07:44:58PM +0200, Moe wrote:
> I was the guy complaining on IRC, so I'd like to jump in and clarify:
>
> * The bug is still present in 2.7.0, which is not 8 years old
There is no bug. Postfix is working *exactly* as designed. And the
design has been given much thought.
>
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:47PM -0400, Matt Hayes wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>
> Now, I'm not all that bright on how postfix sorts out the hostname, and
> frankly, I don't care, but I don't like people saying its a 'bug' when I
> have no problems following
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Matt Hayes:
>> Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
>> this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
>> postfix and referencing this:
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>
> They are talking abo
Matt Hayes:
> Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
> this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
> postfix and referencing this:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
They are talking about an eight-year old version of
Matt Hayes put forth on 6/2/2010 9:46 PM:
> Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
> this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
> postfix and referencing this:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>
>
> Now, I'm not a
Matt Hayes wrote (on Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:48:53PM -0400):
>
>
> On 06/02/2010 11:44 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> > Failure to properly configure Postfix isn't a bug. Documentation exists
> > for a reason, if a config doesn't work, fix the config. Don't complain
> > because magic doesn't happen.
On 06/02/2010 11:44 PM, Jim Wright wrote:
> Failure to properly configure Postfix isn't a bug. Documentation exists for
> a reason, if a config doesn't work, fix the config. Don't complain because
> magic doesn't happen.
>
> I know nothing about debian, and can't speak to any allowanced post
Failure to properly configure Postfix isn't a bug. Documentation exists for a
reason, if a config doesn't work, fix the config. Don't complain because magic
doesn't happen.
I know nothing about debian, and can't speak to any allowanced postfix does or
doesn't make on that platform. I run pos
Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
postfix and referencing this:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
Now, I'm not all that bright on how postfix sorts out the hostname, and
32 matches
Mail list logo
