From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 11:14:50 EST
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I agree with Michael on the user interface aspect. Unlike bounce/defer
> which are part of the fixed infrastructure, delivery agents are
> sometimes configured by human beings.
>
The "error" transport is also fixed infrastructure in the sense that
trivial-rewrite recognizes the service name, and "smtpd" indirectly
rejectes recipients that resolve to the "error" transport. So for example
configuring the existing "error" transport to discard would not work
right (only locally injected mail would be discarded).
This said, I don't have religion on this point, what is your preferred
interface?
Do you want to compile a separate binary for a "null" (discard?) delivery
agent, or extend "error" with command-line options? Forking a minor
variation of the same source code is not very appealing, so I think it is
either Makefile tricks to build two executables from the same code, or
command line options.
Frankly I still think that the service name is the best interface. For
what its worth "error" and "discard" (under similar names) are built
directly into Sendmail. It is hard to imagine doing something different
with "error" or "discard" mail, and it is easier to document/understand a
fixed service name, rather than a site-dependent one.
-- Viktor.
|
|
|