Re: Versioned documentation, was Re: postmap -q and ldap

> > So you leave your online documentation using the syntax of a > > release that is 6 years old? That seems fairly odd. Why not use > > versioned documentation? People can legitimately use Postfix over a span of many years. Currently, the oldest supported release is Postfix version 2.4, which

Re: Versioned documentation, was Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 15:30, /dev/rob0 wrote: > Another drawback to having versioned documentation online is that El > Goog is as likely to find the wrong version of a document. If a > seeker ends up at http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html , all's > well, but not necessarily so if they fin

Versioned documentation, was Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:28 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni > wrote: > >> http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html >> >> BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY >>For backwards compatibility with Postfix version 2.0 and > > So

Re: Documentation patch: Re: postmap -q and ldap

--On Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:16 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:12:23PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote: > Note the above deprecated postmap -q syntax. It is not deprecated, this never worked. Thanks! :) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engi

Documentation patch: Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:12:23PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote: > > Note the above deprecated postmap -q syntax. > > It is not deprecated, this never worked. Index: proto/LDAP_README.html *** proto/LDAP_README.html 6 Feb 2010 07:34:26 - 1.1.1.1 --- proto/LDAP_README.html 24

Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:06:58AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >fancy.cf: >... >search_base = dc=example, dc=com >query_filter = mail=%s >result_attribute = memberaddr >special_result_attribute = memberdn >termin

Re: postmap -q and ldap

--On Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:56 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni wrote: Nothing of the sort, the documentation shows *current* syntax and briefly documents any legacy syntax. Your tone is in the above is unnecessarily hostile. Please don't go there... Nothing in my response was intended as hosti

Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:28 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni > wrote: > >> http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html >> >> BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY >>For backwards compatibility with Postfix version 2.0 and > > So

Re: postmap -q and ldap

--On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:28 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni wrote: http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY For backwards compatibility with Postfix version 2.0 and So you leave your online documentation using the syntax of a release that is 6 years old

Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 02:20:34PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:15 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni > wrote: > >> >> File names must start with "/" or ".". > > Thanks. It looks like the online documentation needs updating to match > this. http://www.postfix.org/

Re: postmap -q and ldap

--On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:15 PM -0400 Victor Duchovni wrote: File names must start with "/" or ".". Thanks. It looks like the online documentation needs updating to match this. postmap -q global_us...@zimbra.com ldap:/opt/zimbra/conf/ldap-groups.cf worked. --Quanah -- Quanah G

Re: postmap -q and ldap

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 02:12:53PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > I'm trying to test a new .cf file that uses ldap with postmap, and I > noticed that it fails to actually honor the fields set in the file. I'm > going off of the documentation found at >