i'm going to collect these:
Subject: You have been unsubscribed from the Exim-users
here's the message that i received which prompted this:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
Subject: Re: [exim] local_user section with check_local_user
removed (as advised
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on lkcl.net)
OK, gloves off.
On 01/02/2007 16:06, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>i will endeavour to track down the scope of this problem
>further, because i have just tried this:
>and _that_ was accepted (!)
In that case, YOUR copy of Exim is not checking against YOUR
Cyrus - or anyhting else, in fact - to see if the local_part
>it's the fact that the mail gets accepted - without
>checked against the cyrus mailbox, and THEN it gets
>to be delivered by LMTP, that bothers me. is that...
>too much to ask?
No. But then you haven't given us your ACL details, you
described the files your Cyrus installation is using, you...
obviously you haven't done much apart from follow, blindly,
recommendations you found somewhere (in HOWTOs, but are they
ones?) and they *don't do what you want them to*
>and this issue smells veeerrry slightly, to me, like
a bug or
>limitation in exim4 itself, with a limitation in the config
>format (of not being able to specify empty users, for sure).
Incorrect. It is a misconfiguration in YOUR Exim config.
and, this was my reply, after several days, and some quite
intense debugging one night that had to involve examining
the exim 4.64 source code _and_ taking the risk of compiling
and installing a modified version on a live server:
i've been thinking carefully about how to reply to this
message, composing a reply over several days.
here's how i expected this conversation, over several
emails and days,
"hello, i'm an experienced free software
myself to be a reasonably experienced linux admin and
a problem that is beyond my level of experience and it
a bug and i need help in working it out"
you (exim developers):
"greetings, and thank you for contacting us:
we're a bit
we'll try to get to the bottom of this as well you're
correct but we could also be wrong, so we'll see.
to check: have you tried [description cut] and could
send your configuration or put it online somewhere.
the greatest of respect: as an experienced free
you should know already to do these things to save us
wrist to you. in the mean-time, your issue smells like
which we already discussed to death [timescales cut]
and here are
some references [urls to archives or even better to
supplied] and it would help enormously if you could
read and review
those as it will save us a hell of a lot of time which
have a lot of".
"oops, sorry, yes i really should know by now:
life easier for you and save time. here's the config
yes i tried X / no i didn't try Y [delete as
appropriate]. thank you
for the references, i read them and yes it's the same
issue / no
i don't believe it is the same, and this and this and
this is why
[delete as appropriate]".
we go round this loop a few times, resolving what
is, or at
least trying to resolve it, and each of us gets to learn
and, ultimately, hopefully, the quality of the code and/or
that comes out of it gets improved, and everyone is happy
that they learned
AT NO FUCKING TIME are the words "ok, gloves off"
anticipated to be
heard in those discussions, the ones in my head.
graeme - as an experienced developer, you should know
if someone describes to you something that quite
that they haven't got a clue [like i did when i didn't know
was], but they appear to be quite articulate and also quite
then next time why don't you consider telling them "look,
completely in the wrong ball-park, and you're likely to
take up quite
a lot of our time if we explain it to you in detail.
please trust me
when i say that your issue is probably this this or this,
investigate it by trying that, that or that, and come back
to us and
let us know".
telling me that my issue is a problem with someone
configuration is FUCK ALL use to man nor beast.
i did some code-walking in exim 4.64 and to me it would
there is a problem with 550 codes being ignored by the code
src/transport/lmtp.c - but (and i know why and i agree with
i haven't yet found the point where the exec()s call out
from, as it's
a bit complicated to follow (and the code comments are
and well-written but it's _still_ a bit hard to follow as it's
unfamiliar code to me).
here's the thing: i've already made my decision not to
instead, i'm just going to put in a little bit of exim
config and leave
it at that. if that exim config makes messages from <>
bounce with a
reject message saying 'sorry, <> messages not accepted,
manually to firstname.lastname@example.org' then so be it. it solves
so, your 'ok gloves off' stupid outburst has _lost_ you
could have helped you solve a problem. helped you to help
is the whole point of writing free software.
_don't_ do that again. not to anybody. no matter
you may have
heard about them.
now, here's the thing. this is _another_ example of
developers who can't deal with intelligent but inexperienced
users of their software, who _want_ to help, _want_ to get
and yes, i know that i'm a complete pain, and i go
off on the wrong tangent making the wrong conclusions and
treading on toes along the way - but who doesn't???
here's the bit about this that makes me particularly
love exim, and it's a great mailer, and i consider it to be
a hell of a lot easier to work with than the alternatives:
with exim, i can achieve more (extremely complex things) in
a very short amount of time.
the goal of the
developers (all free software developers) should be to think
of ways to accelerate the development of free software to
reach and help the maximum number of people that they can.
this is a _classic_ example of how not to go about doing
exactly that. the developer, in this case, graeme, was
extremely sarcastic, extremely nasty, extremely unhelful,
rude, curt and generally demonstrated, without saying so
(which would actually have been much better) that he really
didn't want to waste his time even communicating with me.
and yes, i know i'm a pain. but somebody has to be
otherwise there's no way to know when the pain stops, is there?