>> > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
>> > To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> > Cc: /dev/rob0
>> > Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
>> >
>> > Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " &quo
Am 06.11.2011 10:39, schrieb David Southwell:
> Agreed. It is possible to comprehend postfix's documentation given plenty of
> time to concemntrate upon it. Unfortunately most administrators cannot give
> that degree of attention to every piece of software.
than they are doing the wrong job!
On Sunday 06 November 2011 02:29:30 Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 06.11.2011 10:22, schrieb David Southwell:
> > IMHO Postfix needs to add to its goals a determination to make
> > configuration a breeze rather than a challenge. That means diagnostic
> > and corrective parsers and or an html based confi
Am 06.11.2011 10:22, schrieb David Southwell:
> IMHO Postfix needs to add to its goals a determination to make configuration
> a
> breeze rather than a challenge. That means diagnostic and corrective parsers
> and or an html based configuration interface.
so and now i will tell you that i h
Am 06.11.2011 10:22, schrieb David Southwell:
> Hence thoughtful engineers incorporate diagnostic parsers and html
> configuration tools. IMHO postfix has been very slow to develop an apporocah
> which places the needs of system administrators in the forefront of its
> development strategy.
w
stfix-users@postfix.org
> > Cc: /dev/rob0
> > Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
> >
> > Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical
> > symbol is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should neve
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of David Southwell
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Cc: /dev/rob0
> Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: s
On 11/5/11 12:40 PM, David Southwell wrote:
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
Since it is an integral part of the Mail Format RFC (RFC 2822) as the
way to indicate that hea
On 05/11/11 17:30, David Southwell wrote:
> The problem you identify in subsequent lines, has its roots in postfix's
> rather primitive formatting structure.
>
> If it were replace by something like:
> {submission (variant,modifier [connector] data )
> (variant = data)
> (varian
On 05/11/11 17:40, David Southwell wrote:
> Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
> is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
Telling people, member of an affirmed community, that what they are
currently doing is idiotic
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a " " as a critical symbol
is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
On Saturday 05 November 2011 07:50:58 /dev/rob0 wrote:
> I have cut all the irrelevant and whiny crap from the quotes, and I
> ask that others please not continue that off-topic and useless
> discussion. One part of this, q.v., deserves to be addressed.
>
> On Saturday 05 November 2011 09:03:18 Da
12 matches
Mail list logo
