On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:40:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:32:20AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > >> 2.1 I'd suggest not to change that, it's a good compromise between > >> performance and reliability. > > 2.1. Bounce message contents are not crash-proof. > > Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan documents this > > in a subordinate clause of his qmail reliability FAQ. That means: if your > > qmail is bouncing mail and at the same time, your system crashes, the > > bounce mail contents may be corrupt or incomplete. > > This sounds like data loss, which is normally considered a grave bug per > > <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer>. Do people disagree that this is a > > grave bug? > Yes. Most of our MTAs deliberately truncate bounce messages. "deliberately truncate" != "mangle to the point that there is insufficient identifying information remaining". If you're assuring me that the latter doesn't happen, then I'm satisfied; but none of the information provided so far establishes this. > And arguing with RFC 3461 is a bit problematic because our default MTA > doesn't implement that RFC. Well, I wasn't the one who introduced the reference to RFC 3461... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature