Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Titanus Eramius
Fri, 31 May 2013 16:56:11 -0400 (EDT) skrev wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema): > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it > is time to change the release numbering scheme. ... > > Wietse I think it would be ill advised to do so, since the current scheme conform

Re: ssl errors in log. error on remote or local side?

2013-06-01 Thread Charles Marcus
On 2013-05-22 1:45 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: --On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:17 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote: On 2013-05-22 12:38 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: Both 1.0.1c and 1.0.1d had *serious* problems. Unless you can absolutely confirm that Gentoo has applied all of the patches

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Rob Sterenborg (lists)
On 01-06-13 04:15, Mike. wrote: > On 5/31/2013 at 4:56 PM wie...@porcupine.org wrote: > > |After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, > = > > > In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01, > allowing 100 minor versions before the major versi

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Charles Marcus
On 2013-06-01 7:35 AM, Rob Sterenborg (lists) wrote: Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1 equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find it strange why anyone would think so. A version 'number' is not a decimal; it's a numerical code that

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema: > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it > is time to change the release numbering scheme. Glad you are asking. No, it is not the time to join in brainless version numbering races. Tell people those are independent numbers w

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Len Conrad
At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote: >Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema: >> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it >> is time to change the release numbering scheme. don't dumb postfix down. keep the current numbering style. Len

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* Wietse Venema : > After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it > is time to change the release numbering scheme. Major.minor.patch is a well known scheme and its complexity isn't for fun, but because it has useful meaning to those who get to see the release number - admins.

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Linux Addict
After 2.9, it should have been 3, not 2.10 ;) Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Len Conrad wrote: > At 07:18 AM 6/1/2013, you wrote: >> Am 31.05.2013 22:56, schrieb Wietse Venema: >>> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it >>> is time to change the re

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Ove Evensen
I would say keep it as normal.  2.9 and then 2.10. If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix.  Period!  Regards Ove Jk. Evensen Original message From: Linux Addict Date: 01/06/2013 14:02 (GMT+00:00) To: Len Conrad Cc: postfix-us

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Jeroen Geilman
On 06/01/2013 03:42 PM, Ove Evensen wrote: I would say keep it as normal. 2.9 and then 2.10. If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix. Period! Regards Ove Jk. Evensen Original message From: Linux Addict Date: 01/06/2013 14:02

Re: Challenges of an internal relay server

2013-06-01 Thread Jeroen Geilman
On 05/31/2013 10:53 PM, Jason Price wrote: Background: Internal Mail Relay server. Connections from the internet are not possible. The vast majority of messages are going to Google Apps. Problem one: How to properly 'blacklist' certain To: addresses. With a blacklist in the form of a chec

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 01.06.2013 14:34, schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter: > I wouldn't go as far to say that if they don't understand major.minor.patch > they shouldn't be using the software at all. Reminding how I started and all > the stuff I had to learn, I'd find that pose rather arrogant and not helpful > in becomin

RE : Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Joan Moreau
Actually moved to Exim. Exim "just works" and highly configurable. Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung Message d'origine De : Ove Evensen Date : 01/06/2013 21:42 (GMT+08:00) A : Cc : postfix-us...@cloud9.net Objet : Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y? I would say keep it as

[THREAD CLOSED]: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 09:53:04PM +0800, Joan Moreau wrote: > Actually moved to Exim. Flamebait. I think this thread is done. -- Viktor. Nigel Tufnel: These go to eleven.

Re: [THREAD CLOSED]: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Wietse Venema
Viktor Dukhovni: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 09:53:04PM +0800, Joan Moreau wrote: > > > Actually moved to Exim. > > Flamebait. I think this thread is done. We defintely don't want to go there. As for the other reponses, I was very pleased with the feedback from all those people who I haven't see

Re: Is it time for 2.x.y -> x.y?

2013-06-01 Thread Victor d'Agostino
Gentlemen, Don't feed the troll ! Regards, Victor Le 01/06/2013 15:42, Ove Evensen a écrit : I would say keep it as normal. 2.9 and then 2.10. If you can not see the difference between 2.1 and 2.10 you should not use postfix. Period! Regards Ove Jk. Evensen Original message

Re: Challenges of an internal relay server

2013-06-01 Thread Jason Price
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > > On 05/31/2013 10:53 PM, Jason Price wrote: >> >> Background: Internal Mail Relay server. Connections from the internet are >> not possible. The vast majority of messages are going to Google Apps. >> >> Problem one: How to properly 'blac