Prev: status=bounced unknown user:
Next: Convert an attachment to a link
From: Scott Kitterman on 7 Jul 2010 15:24
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:14:08 Gary Chambers wrote:
> > No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with
> > Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I
> > suspect at least some surely must be less so.
>
> Why not simply avoid whatever hassles you're encountering with your
> distribution's version of the software and compile your own? I'd like
> PostgreSQL support in Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS, but I didn't come to
> the list to ask for it.
>
Just so the archives have the correct information about this:

sudo apt-get install postfix-pgsql

is all that's needed for PostgreSQL support in Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS.

Scott K

From: Joe on 7 Jul 2010 15:38
Phil Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:11, Joe <joe(a)tmsusa.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I currently run a number of production mail servers on ubuntu LTS and
>> have never seen any of the problems you're struggling with.
>>
>
> Are you using the packaged version of Postfix, or the source you
> compile yourself?
>

I almost never install tarballs, but prefer to take the time to find or
make a deb package if at all possible, because of the manageability
added by the packaging system.

The stock postfix package included with ubuntu has worked well for me,
no surprises, no problems, either with the postfix 2.5.1 package that
came with ubuntu 8.04, or the postfix 2.7.0 package that came with
ubuntu 10.04.

It shouldn't be too much trouble to build a package of say 2.7.0 from
10.04, for installation in a 8.04 system. There are also repositories
with ready-to-install, newer versions of postfix, if you need them.

BTW it's best to use one of the currently supported LTS server versions
which I mentioned above, rather than a release like 9.10.

Joe







From: Jeroen Geilman on 8 Jul 2010 08:30
On 07/07/2010 08:02 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:48, Jeroen Geilman<jeroen(a)adaptr.nl> wrote:
>
>
>> I would suggest using a distribution or OS that allows you to configure
>> postfix properly.
>>
> Name it.
>

Okay, I may have been baiting a bit there.
The obvious inference is that you need to know your distro in order to
be able to do anything useful with it.
If that causes issues, that distribution's support is your first port of
call, NOT a distribution-agnostic support list.

If you have sufficient knowledge of your chosen distribution, postfix
works fine on any distro.

>> Anything that interferes with that is not worth the effort.
>>
> Which do you use?
>
>

I use Ubuntu; I like the packaging methodology, and it saves me time
with respect to upgrades and dependencies.
However, I do not use any dpkg configuration that comes with it.
I read the *postfix* documentation for any issues I have, and I don't
demand that the postfix documentation offers fill-in-the-blanks
solutions for issues raised by the distribution I use.


>> Regardless, no specific distribution will be supported here.
>>
> Maybe if you had read the background information instead of going bla
> bla bla you would have understood what the purpose of all this is.
> Who better to know what OS/distro works better with Postfix that those
> who actually use it?
>
>
>

I did not see any background information related to postfix.

Perhaps if you, instead, had asked a postfix-related question, such as a
specific issue you were having, then it could be answered in a
distribution-agnostic way.


>> If there are any known gotchas with specific OSes, these will be noted in
>> the documentation where applicable.
>>
> Does that include things like easier to maintain Postfix? ... doesn't
> interfere with Postfix? How about a summary?
>
>
>
No, it includes specific incompatibilties or things you might need to be
aware of.
Note that for the purposes of such documentation, "Linux" is one OS.

>>> This will be with Dovecot as the IMAP end.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, utterly not postfix related.
>>
> Actually, it is related. But apparently you probably figure that if
> anything involves 2 or more pieces of software, it's only related to
> the other pieces (whichever they happen to be).
>
>
>
No, dovecot is an IMAP server with SASL capabilities.
Neither involve postfix directly.

>> (I'll be mogadored if I can find a postfix question anywhere in there)
>>
> Why did you bother responding if you have such a narrow view that you
> cannot see it? Do you actually like to show off how arrogant you can
> be?
>

There was, simply, no postfix-specific question in your post.
I could replace every mention of the word "postfix" with "emacs", and it
would come out exactly the same.

J.

From: Phil Howard on 8 Jul 2010 12:08
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 08:30, Jeroen Geilman <jeroen(a)adaptr.nl> wrote:

> Okay, I may have been baiting a bit there.
> The obvious inference is that you need to know your distro in order to be
> able to do anything useful with it.
> If that causes issues, that distribution's support is your first port of
> call, NOT a distribution-agnostic support list.
>
> If you have sufficient knowledge of your chosen distribution, postfix works
> fine on any distro.

What you are suggesting is a level of distribution knowledge beyond
what an administrator-user would normally know. The level needed for
this would be distribution package maintainer level. I'm not a
distribution package maintainer and do not feel I need to become that.

This is strictly an interaction issue between component A and
component B ... where in this case one of them is Postfix. And what I
asked about was multiple instances of the component that is not
Postfix, which means Postfix is the common element across all
relations in the map.


> I use Ubuntu; I like the packaging methodology, and it saves me time with
> respect to upgrades and dependencies.
> However, I do not use any dpkg configuration that comes with it.
> I read the *postfix* documentation for any issues I have, and I don't demand
> that the postfix documentation offers fill-in-the-blanks solutions for
> issues raised by the distribution I use.

So I'll take your answer to my question as "I suggest Ubuntu which has
worked fine for me".


> I did not see any background information related to postfix.

Background is for perspective. You should read it as such.


> Perhaps if you, instead, had asked a postfix-related question, such as a
> specific issue you were having, then it could be answered in a
> distribution-agnostic way.

Suggest another distribution-agnostic mailing list or forum for asking
what amounts to "which is the best distro for Postfix to run on with
the least troubles". That can't be a distribution-specific mailing
list or forum.


> No, it includes specific incompatibilties or things you might need to be
> aware of.
> Note that for the purposes of such documentation, "Linux" is one OS.

Realities are that distributions do differ, sometimes nearly as much
as BSD vs. Linux vs. Solaris, etc.


> No, dovecot is an IMAP server with SASL capabilities.
> Neither involve postfix directly.

When they fail to work together, tell me specifically which is at
fault. Or maybe you expect the poster to figure out the problem
before asking.


> There was, simply, no postfix-specific question in your post.
> I could replace every mention of the word "postfix" with "emacs", and it
> would come out exactly the same.

I take it you believe that when asking about the relationship between
component A and component B, one should never assume that it is ever
specific to either component A or component B, which then leaves one
in a gap where no one in component A or component B support cares to
answer (if they are like you are).

So what was my question specific to, if not Postfix? It certainly was
not specific to any distro. Postfix was the common element.

--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!

From: Phil Howard on 8 Jul 2010 12:29
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:15, N. Yaakov Ziskind <awacs(a)ziskind.us> wrote:

> (I've installed PF on half a dozen Ubuntu boxes, with no hiccups
> significant enough to remember.)
>
> What I would say is that the differences between distros only involve
> setup and maybe maintenance, and do not involve performance, so that
> utlimately, what extra effort there is is only pocket change to
> sysadmins.

I guess you mean performance in terms of speed. I'm looking for the
bigger picture, to include reliability, effective interoperability,
administrator maintenance time, etc.


> Now, if someone would come forward with a claim that, "PF runs 10%
> slower/faster etc. on RH vs. Suse", I'm sure the list maintainers would
> be ALL over it.

In what way? If everything was slower on distro XYZ, I'd say that's
an XYZ issue. If distros tend to be uniform but Postfix varies, then
I'd wonder about Postfix. But I'm really right in the middle trying
to figure it out.

--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: status=bounced unknown user:
Next: Convert an attachment to a link