Sloppy error checking in MS code
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 21:30:13 CET 2006
On 17/12/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
> 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.
I know, just pulling your chain a bit;-)
> > 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?)
Yep. A clever way to both have the cake and eat it, no doubt.
It's also a bit funny to see that we're percieved as taking this
"personally" whereas we're always having the feeling its the entirely
other way around:-). Oh well.
In another life we'll have more time and sharper/faster code-reading eyes;).
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner