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

Re: default MTA for sarge

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:46:31PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:38:11 +1000
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > i've noticed over the years that people who aren't able to make a valid
> > point, who have no facts or experience behind them will quickly descend to
> > personal attacks.
> > try sticking to arguing the issues.  you might retain (or even gain) some
> > credibility that way.
>     Which describes what you've done in this thread just as you did years ago.

i think the thread speaks for itself.  go back and review it, you'll see that i
stuck to arguing about the relative merits of the software (i.e. "the issues")
while you launched into a personal attack.

> > well, duh.  headers come in arbitrary order.
>     It isn't that hard to read the headers into a hash and then check the
>     header filters in order so they actually have some value.  

1. hashes, by definition, have no order.

2. hashes imply unique keys (aka headers).  that's not a requirement or an
attribute of message headers.  e.g. multiple Received: headers.

3. postfix's header_checks are intended to be simple and straight-forward.
scanning line-by-line avoids the need to allocate arbitrarily large amounts of
memory to store and search the entire block of headers, and more to store the
headers of mime attachments.  if you want more complex filtering then use a
postfix content filter - that's what they're for.

> I mean pretty
>     much every /other/ program that can process mail does.

4. nope, wrong (again).


Reply to: