7 Feb 2007 lkcl   » (Master)

*ROTFL*.

http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20070205/msg00113.html

i'm going to collect these:


From: exim-users-bounces@exim.org
To: lkcl@lkcl.net
X-BeenThere: exim-users@exim.org
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Subject: You have been unsubscribed from the Exim-users
mailing list

here's the message that i received which prompted this:


X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: graeme
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on
dedi28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
        version=3.1.7
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 a bit >further, because i have just tried this: > >HELO localhost >MAIL FROM:<> >RCPT TO:llllllllllllltotallyfakeaddress@localhost > >and _that_ was accepted (!)

In that case, YOUR copy of Exim is not checking against YOUR copy of Cyrus - or anyhting else, in fact - to see if the local_part is valid.

>it's the fact that the mail gets accepted - without even being >checked against the cyrus mailbox, and THEN it gets attempted >to be delivered by LMTP, that bothers me. is that... just... >too much to ask?

No. But then you haven't given us your ACL details, you haven't described the files your Cyrus installation is using, you... well, obviously you haven't done much apart from follow, blindly, recommendations you found somewhere (in HOWTOs, but are they official 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 file >format (of not being able to specify empty users, for sure).

Incorrect. It is a misconfiguration in YOUR Exim config.

[snip]

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:

....

heya folks,

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, to go:

me:

"hello, i'm an experienced free software developer and i consider myself to be a reasonably experienced linux admin and i've found a problem that is beyond my level of experience and it might be a bug and i need help in working it out"

you (exim developers):

"greetings, and thank you for contacting us: we're a bit busy but we'll try to get to the bottom of this as well you're probably not correct but we could also be wrong, so we'll see. firstly, just to check: have you tried [description cut] and could you also send your configuration or put it online somewhere. btw, with the greatest of respect: as an experienced free software developer you should know already to do these things to save us time, slapped wrist to you. in the mean-time, your issue smells like this one which we already discussed to death [timescales cut] and here are some references [urls to archives or even better to wiki pages 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 we don't have a lot of".

me:

"oops, sorry, yes i really should know by now: i'll try to make life easier for you and save time. here's the config [url cut]. 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 the issue is, or at least trying to resolve it, and each of us gets to learn something, and, ultimately, hopefully, the quality of the code and/or documentation that comes out of it gets improved, and everyone is happy that they learned something.

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 better.

if someone describes to you something that quite obviously demonstrates that they haven't got a clue [like i did when i didn't know what <> was], but they appear to be quite articulate and also quite intelligent, then next time why don't you consider telling them "look, dude, you're 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, and please 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 else's default configuration is FUCK ALL use to man nor beast.

now.

i did some code-walking in exim 4.64 and to me it would appear that there is a problem with 550 codes being ignored by the code that uses src/transport/lmtp.c - but (and i know why and i agree with the design) 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 extremely useful 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 pursue this.

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, please send manually to postmaster@lkcl.net' then so be it. it solves my immediate problem.

so, your 'ok gloves off' stupid outburst has _lost_ you someone who could have helped you solve a problem. helped you to help others. which is the whole point of writing free software.

_don't_ do that again. not to anybody. no matter _what_ 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 things resolved.

and yes, i know that i'm a complete pain, and i go totally 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 sad: i 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 a pain. otherwise there's no way to know when the pain stops, is there?

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!