Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
Steve> Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan
Steve> documents this in a subordinate clause of his qmail
Steve> reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is bouncing mail
Steve> and at the same time, your system crashes, the bounce mail
Steve> contents may be corrupt or incomplete.
Steve> This sounds like data loss, which is normally considered a
Steve> grave bug per <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer>. Do
Steve> people disagree that this is a grave bug? If you think
Steve> it's a grave bug, do you think it should be a blocker for
Steve> archive inclusion?
Sam> Steve, I'm not on the TC. However I do have a fair bit of
Sam> experience with Internet standards and what sorts of
Sam> guarantees Internet protocols make to their users about
Sam> reliability. If you take a look at the bottom of Page 19 of
Sam> RFC 3461 you will find that an MTA is permitted to return a
Sam> partial bounce message.
Try page 20 instead:-(
Sam> While I'll admit that returning corrupted bounce messages is
Sam> kind of ugly, I'm failing to see how it could be grave if
Sam> returning a message truncated earlier would be just fine.
Sam> Personally, I think that returning corrupting bounce messages
Sam> would be a bug although I would not mind too much if a
Sam> maintainer tagged it wontfix.
Sam> However, one form of corruption would be more serious. If
Sam> bounce messages may include contents of other messages, or
Sam> random memory possibly including security sensitive memory,
Sam> then that would be an RC bug of some form in my mind.
Sam> --Sam
Sam> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Sam> debian-ctte-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of
Sam> "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: