Sloppy error checking in MS code

[Dhawal Doshy]

Quoting Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com>:

> On 17/12/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 17/12/06, Mike Jakubik <mikej at rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> Rob Freeman wrote:
>>>>> If any of those problems happen, u have more troubles then MailScanner.
>>>>> Personally, it is not MailScanners job to monitor a server for
>> disk space,
>>>>> permissions, or any other OS / HW problems.  And if someone is tampering
>>>>> with permissions, well one has much more issues then getting mail at that
>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never stated that MS should monitor my system, it should however fail
>>>> gracefully and not eat messages.
>>> Quite a resonable standpoint. And we're all pretty sure that this is
>>> the state of things too;). But we should look, yes.
>>
>> Time for me to add some facts (of course for my point of view) here,
>> since i follow the postfix list very regularly..
>>
>> Wietse and Viktor from my little interaction with them have no problem
>> with any Filtering tool (including mailscanner) as long as it uses one
>> of the *documented* interfaces (how is not what i mention here, read
>> the thread below for wietse's comment)
>>
>> The comment on the mailscanner code being sloppy was made by *ahem*
>> 'Mark Martinec' of amavisd-new fame.. See this thread:
>
> :-) Missed that pertinent point:-)
>> http://groups.google.com/group/list.postfix.users/browse_thread/thread/d919f921151c8cb3/d1ac170a6838855f?lnk=gst&q=mailscanner&rnum=1#d1ac170a6838855f
>>
>> It is therefore understandable that Mark made this comment (and
>> probably rightly so).. however let us look at the larger picture and
>> those who can read code, ought to make an effort to 'audit' the code
>> for the *so called* sloppiness just to re-assure themselves (and
>> probably others).
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> From my point of view again, checking for free disk space and other
>> such things is *not* mailscanner's job.. as long as it fails
>> gracefully and consistently.. there shouldn't be a scope for a *maybe*
>> anywhere. And why blame postfix? the locking for sendmail changed as
>> well a few versions back (try and recollect the number of times people
>> on this list have been using the wrong locking mechanism for
>> sendmail).. something for exim changed as well breaking things for a
>> while.
>
> Still with you.
>
>>
>> Finally a few words about DJB, if you can code even half as well as
>> him then you have all the right to criticize else just shut up and use
>> something else. How many pieces of code from the last century work as
>> they were documented.. till today???
>
> (Playing at being more obtuse than I hopefully am:-):
> Where did I criticise him? Nowhere, of course. If I were to do that,
> it'd be along the lines of being a bit opinionated (not unlike
> Wietse:-)... But they've earned the right to have strong opinions, so
> I'm fine with that... :-):-).

Ah come on Glenn, by 'you' i meant 'one'.. my reply wasn't to you but  
to the thread.

> The criticism in the PF users list is still mainly founded around the
> _perceived_ groping of queue files. This is still where I'd
> concentrate my auditing, when I have the time to do it. Notable is
> that at least some of the folks are becoming more ... varied in their
> approach:-).

exactly.. now if only i could read code as well as i can rant ;-) btw  
check http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2004-01/3562.html  
(looks quite neat.. eh?)

- dhawal