[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian



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


Reply to: