On 09/10/2012 03:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
My point is not that 10 is better than 5.
My point is that setting DKIMproxy to 5 and Postfix to 10 is wrong: it
works but quite inefficiently - if you don't care about queues being
handled correct then why care about those numbers at all?
On a related note, it only makes sense to limit _injections_ from
Postfix to DKIMprox, not the returning postfix _daemons_.
So all in all I recommend these two changes to documentation:
* Change maxproc of dkimsign unix and pickup fifo to 5
* Change maxproc of 127.0.0.1:10029 inet and submission inet to -
* Mention that the numbers 5 really correlate with those of DKIMproxy,
so should also be adjusted in postfix config if changed in DKIMproxy
config
(Upstream seems to also not document the relationship, and also bofusly
limits the return daemons, but at least with a higher value so the
wrong-doing less frequently has an ill effect)
Hope it makes better sense now.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense. The documentation in the
README.Debian tells to do this:
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_proxy_filter=127.0.0.1:10026
-o smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=5
With smtpd_client_connection_count_limit=5 this matches the default in
DKIMproxy.
So what's wrong then? That I haven't told that this should match the
number of daemon in the DKIMproxy config?
I disagree with your lowering severity (I find it not important but
normal, because this is _ill_ documentation of _core_ functionality, not
lack of it), but that's your call.
It's just that I believe that documentation bugs should always be of
severity wishlist, but things in the wishlist can have my priority,
especially if there's some mistakes. Let's not loose time discussing
this anyway, and let's try to fix! ;)
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
