Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #269312 > unrolled thread

Dovecot correct ownership for logs

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 00:50 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 19:30 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:20 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:30 +0200
                OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
                  Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 16:10 +0200
                    Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-14 17:00 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 17:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 21:00 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:30 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 19:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 19:50 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-14 20:00 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 20:20 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-05-14 20:40 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
                              Markup in mail messages (was: Re: OT: Top Posting) Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 04:20 +0200
                                Re: Markup in mail messages eben@gmx.us - 2024-05-15 05:40 +0200
                                Re: Markup in mail messages Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
                                  Re: Markup in mail messages David <curmudgeon@telaman.net.au> - 2024-05-15 20:50 +0200
                                  Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-16 15:30 +0200
                                    Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-16 15:50 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 16:00 +0200
                                        Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-17 21:30 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 23:20 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 05:40 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-18 07:50 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 19:00 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Karl Vogel <vogelke@pobox.com> - 2024-05-17 05:50 +0200
                                        Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 07:50 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 13:20 +0200
                                            Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:30 +0200
                                              Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-18 15:50 +0200
                                    Re: Markup in mail messages Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2024-05-16 17:10 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 16:40 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
                              Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 20:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-05-14 23:20 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 23:40 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:50 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 16:10 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 18:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-15 18:50 +0200
                    Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 20:50 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-05-14 17:40 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 17:50 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 06:40 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> - 2024-05-14 14:10 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:50 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:30 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:40 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
                    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 14:00 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 13:10 +0200
                    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 14:40 +0200
                      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:20 +0200
                        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
                        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
                          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:20 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#269312 — Dovecot correct ownership for logs

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Maybe someone here knows how the ownership of these files for Dovecot needs
to be in order to work, as various distributions of Dovecot packages seem
to use different users:
I'd like Dovecot not to log into syslog, but to dedicated files. Therefore
I've created the directory /var/log/dovecot and told dovecot in
10-logging.conf to log info, debug and error messages to separate files.
But I get error messages from postfix (weird):

May 13 20:55:37 mail postfix/local[2824184]: 95BCF1000A9: to=<user@domain.de>,
> relay=local, delay=3.2, delays=1.9/0.29/0/1.1, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
> (temporary failure. Command output: lda(user): Error:
> net_connect_unix(/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permission denied Can't
> open log file /var/log/dovecot/error.log: Permission denied )

This is the content of /var/log/dovecot:
-rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot    0 13. Mai 20:50 debug.log
-rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  880 13. Mai 21:21 error.log
-rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  40K 13. Mai 21:20 info.log

So why is Dovecot complaining? I only see processes owned by root, dovecot,
dovenull and user processes of dovecot. And dovenull seems to be not
relevant for this.

Best
Richard

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#269313

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:16:13PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> Maybe someone here knows how the ownership of these files for Dovecot needs
> to be in order to work, as various distributions of Dovecot packages seem
> to use different users:
> I'd like Dovecot not to log into syslog, but to dedicated files. Therefore
> I've created the directory /var/log/dovecot and told dovecot in
> 10-logging.conf to log info, debug and error messages to separate files.
> But I get error messages from postfix (weird):
> 
> May 13 20:55:37 mail postfix/local[2824184]: 95BCF1000A9: to=<user@domain.de>,
> > relay=local, delay=3.2, delays=1.9/0.29/0/1.1, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
> > (temporary failure. Command output: lda(user): Error:
> > net_connect_unix(/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permission denied Can't
> > open log file /var/log/dovecot/error.log: Permission denied )
> 
> This is the content of /var/log/dovecot:
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot    0 13. Mai 20:50 debug.log
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  880 13. Mai 21:21 error.log
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  40K 13. Mai 21:20 info.log
> 
> So why is Dovecot complaining?

    :-)


> I only see processes owned by root, dovecot,
> dovenull and user processes of dovecot. And dovenull seems to be not
> relevant for this.


Reread
} May 13 20:55:37 mail postfix/local[2824184]: 95BCF1000A9: to=<user@domain.de>,
} } open log file /var/log/dovecot/error.log: Permission denied )

Note  postfix

 
> Best
> Richard


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269314

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:16:13PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> May 13 20:55:37 mail postfix/local[2824184]: 95BCF1000A9: to=<user@domain.de>,
> > relay=local, delay=3.2, delays=1.9/0.29/0/1.1, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
> > (temporary failure. Command output: lda(user): Error:
> > net_connect_unix(/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permission denied Can't
> > open log file /var/log/dovecot/error.log: Permission denied )
> 
> This is the content of /var/log/dovecot:
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot    0 13. Mai 20:50 debug.log
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  880 13. Mai 21:21 error.log
> -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  40K 13. Mai 21:20 info.log

The first two things that come to mind are AppArmor, and systemd unit
files.

Check to see whether there's an AppArmor profile for this program, or
any lines from AppArmor in dmesg.

If that's not it, look at the systemd unit file(s) that start the
dovecot service(s), if there are any, and see if they're using any of
the directives that restrict the locations the program can access.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269324

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

AppArmor complaints would be shown in journalctl too. But dmseg doesn't
show anything either. Just switched dovecot back to these log files, waited
for the error message, yet dmesg doesn't have anything new since yesterday.
Systemd was also my guess as it was originally set to ProtectSystem=full
for dovecot.service, but reducing that to yes didn't change anything.

These are the in the Service block of the service, maybe you see anything
that could be a reason too:
[Service]
Type=notify
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/dovecot -F
ExecReload=/usr/bin/doveadm reload
ExecStop=/usr/bin/doveadm stop
PrivateTmp=true
NonBlocking=yes
ProtectSystem=yes
ProtectHome=no
PrivateDevices=true
Restart=on-failure

Best
Richard

Am Mo., 13. Mai 2024 um 22:28 Uhr schrieb Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>:

> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:16:13PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> > May 13 20:55:37 mail postfix/local[2824184]: 95BCF1000A9: to=<
> user@domain.de>,
> > > relay=local, delay=3.2, delays=1.9/0.29/0/1.1, dsn=4.3.0,
> status=deferred
> > > (temporary failure. Command output: lda(user): Error:
> > > net_connect_unix(/run/dovecot/stats-writer) failed: Permission denied
> Can't
> > > open log file /var/log/dovecot/error.log: Permission denied )
> >
> > This is the content of /var/log/dovecot:
> > -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot    0 13. Mai 20:50 debug.log
> > -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  880 13. Mai 21:21 error.log
> > -rw-r--r--  1 dovecot dovecot  40K 13. Mai 21:20 info.log
>
> The first two things that come to mind are AppArmor, and systemd unit
> files.
>
> Check to see whether there's an AppArmor profile for this program, or
> any lines from AppArmor in dmesg.
>
> If that's not it, look at the systemd unit file(s) that start the
> dovecot service(s), if there are any, and see if they're using any of
> the directives that restrict the locations the program can access.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269315

On 14/5/24 04:16, Richard wrote:
> Maybe someone here knows how the ownership of these files for Dovecot 
> needs to be in order to work, as various distributions of Dovecot 
> packages seem to use different users:
> I'd like Dovecot not to log into syslog, but to dedicated files. 
> Therefore I've created the directory /var/log/dovecot and told dovecot 
> in 10-logging.conf to log info, debug and error messages to separate 
> files.  But I get error messages from postfix (weird):


A possible cause of problems between postfix and dovecot is that postfix 
usuallly runs chroot so the file tree it sees is not the same as the one 
the rest of the system sees.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269325

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

But why should it cause issues? I set the logging in dovecot's conf.d, so
I'd expect dovecot to write these logs, not postfix as it has its own
settings.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 05:00 Uhr schrieb jeremy ardley <
jeremy.ardley@gmail.com>:

>
> On 14/5/24 04:16, Richard wrote:
> > Maybe someone here knows how the ownership of these files for Dovecot
> > needs to be in order to work, as various distributions of Dovecot
> > packages seem to use different users:
> > I'd like Dovecot not to log into syslog, but to dedicated files.
> > Therefore I've created the directory /var/log/dovecot and told dovecot
> > in 10-logging.conf to log info, debug and error messages to separate
> > files.  But I get error messages from postfix (weird):
>
>
> A possible cause of problems between postfix and dovecot is that postfix
> usuallly runs chroot so the file tree it sees is not the same as the one
> the rest of the system sees.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269327

On 14/5/24 19:17, Richard wrote:
> But why should it cause issues? I set the logging in dovecot's conf.d, 
> so I'd expect dovecot to write these logs, not postfix as it has its 
> own settings.
>
> Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 05:00 Uhr schrieb jeremy ardley 
> <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com>:
>
>
>     On 14/5/24 04:16, Richard wrote:
>     > Maybe someone here knows how the ownership of these files for
>     Dovecot
>     > needs to be in order to work, as various distributions of Dovecot
>     > packages seem to use different users:
>     > I'd like Dovecot not to log into syslog, but to dedicated files.
>     > Therefore I've created the directory /var/log/dovecot and told
>     dovecot
>     > in 10-logging.conf to log info, debug and error messages to
>     separate
>     > files.  But I get error messages from postfix (weird):
>
>
>     A possible cause of problems between postfix and dovecot is that
>     postfix
>     usuallly runs chroot so the file tree it sees is not the same as
>     the one
>     the rest of the system sees.
>

Postfix is chrooted (usuallly) to /var/spool/postfix

If postfix complains about /var/log/dovecot it's actually complaining 
about /var/spool/postfix/var/log/dovecot

I would check that file/directory and how dovecot and postfix interact 
with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269330

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:36:17PM +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
> Postfix is chrooted (usuallly) to /var/spool/postfix

If this is true, then how would a local delivery agent work?  It needs
write access to all users' inboxes, which are either in /var/mail or in
users' home directories.

I could imagine the Postfix SMTP sending/receiving and queue processing
programs being chrooted, but the LDA probably isn't.  Or at least not
chrooted to /var/spool/postfix.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269332

On 14/5/24 19:44, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:36:17PM +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
>> Postfix is chrooted (usuallly) to /var/spool/postfix
> If this is true, then how would a local delivery agent work?  It needs
> write access to all users' inboxes, which are either in /var/mail or in
> users' home directories.
>
> I could imagine the Postfix SMTP sending/receiving and queue processing
> programs being chrooted, but the LDA probably isn't.  Or at least not
> chrooted to /var/spool/postfix.
>
 From what I can find out, the postfix local delivery agent is not 
chroot and it communicates with the main postfix processes via shared 
directories and pipes.

To debug the problem I suggest checking the chroot and non chroot 
processes and eliminate those that are not relevant to the seen error 
messages

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269352

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

How exactly do I do that?

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb jeremy ardley <
jeremy.ardley@gmail.com>:

>
>  From what I can find out, the postfix local delivery agent is not
> chroot and it communicates with the main postfix processes via shared
> directories and pipes.
>
> To debug the problem I suggest checking the chroot and non chroot
> processes and eliminate those that are not relevant to the seen error
> messages
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269333

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

For us the situation is even a bit stranger. The inboxes are located in
neither location, but in /maildirs/username/ (no idea why it was set up
that way, but it's a dedicated mail server where the user's don't have
their own home directory). /var/mail is empty.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>:

> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:36:17PM +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
> > Postfix is chrooted (usuallly) to /var/spool/postfix
>
> If this is true, then how would a local delivery agent work?  It needs
> write access to all users' inboxes, which are either in /var/mail or in
> users' home directories.
>
> I could imagine the Postfix SMTP sending/receiving and queue processing
> programs being chrooted, but the LDA probably isn't.  Or at least not
> chrooted to /var/spool/postfix.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269338

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

"Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied to)
is literally industry standard behavior.

Also, I don't think you've really cleared out any confusion. Now, how
exactly can dovecot log to /var/log/dovecot/ without (postfix) throwing
errors? Because it clearly is for 2 out of 3 files as visible from the file
sizes in my original post. Only the debug file is empty, but maybe nothing
relevant enough has been found yet. There are entries from master,
imap, imap-login, managesieve-login, anvil and various other processes in
info and error. But the error messages from postfix still appear, also
seemingly at least vastly slowing down emails being delivered to the users,
if not bringing that to a complete halt. Only after commenting out these
locations in 10-logging.conf the mails show up for the users.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 14:54 Uhr schrieb Henning Follmann <
hfollmann@itcfollmann.com>:

> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> >
>
> Please don't top post! It is a pain to follow a thread if you do.
>
>
> > Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Greg Wooledge <
> greg@wooledge.org>:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:36:17PM +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
> > > > Postfix is chrooted (usuallly) to /var/spool/postfix
> > >
> > > If this is true, then how would a local delivery agent work?  It needs
> > > write access to all users' inboxes, which are either in /var/mail or in
> > > users' home directories.
>
> Usually the local delivery is done by a local agent (procmail, dovecot's
> lmtp daemon). These do not run chrooted.
>
> > >
> > > I could imagine the Postfix SMTP sending/receiving and queue processing
> > > programs being chrooted, but the LDA probably isn't.  Or at least not
> > > chrooted to /var/spool/postfix.
> > >
> > >
> [fixed top posting]
> > For us the situation is even a bit stranger. The inboxes are located in
> > neither location, but in /maildirs/username/ (no idea why it was set up
> > that way, but it's a dedicated mail server where the user's don't have
> > their own home directory). /var/mail is empty.
>
> This is a common dovecot setup.
> lmtp provides a unix socket into postfix chroot environment. This process
> usually runs as postfix user so the socket is owned by postfix. But it uses
> the dovecot logging configuration.
> Having the maildirs in a dedicated directory makes it easy to have a
> dedicated drive just for the mailboxes. This makes adapting to growth much
> simpler.
>
> -H
>
>
> --
> Henning Follmann           | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269339

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

And you think you're important enough to change that setting for a whole
mailing account? You're funny.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk>:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:11:16 +0200
> Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> >"Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied
> >to) is literally industry standard behavior.
>
> This 'literally' isn't industry.
>
> --
>  Regards  _       "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
>          / )      "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
>         / _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
> Is she really going out with him?
> New Rose - The Damned
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269340 — OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs)

Hi Richard,

Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> writes:

> "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied
> to) is literally industry standard behavior.

Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?

Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this newsgroup?

[snip (51 lines)]

Cheers,

Loris

-- 
This signature is currently under constuction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269342 — Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's not
standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's called a
setting.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb Loris Bennett <
loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de>:

> Hi Richard,
>
> Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied
> > to) is literally industry standard behavior.
>
> Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?
>
> Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this newsgroup?
>
> [snip (51 lines)]
>
> Cheers,
>
> Loris
>
> --
> This signature is currently under constuction.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269344 — Re: OT: Top Posting

On 5/14/24 10:09, Richard wrote:
> Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's 
> not standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's 
> called a setting.
> 
No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor 
to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your 
choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent 
that can. There are dozens of them.

> Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb Loris Bennett 
> <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de <mailto:loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de>>:
> 
>     Hi Richard,
> 
>     Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com <mailto:rrosner5@gmail.com>> writes:
> 
>      > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied
>      > to) is literally industry standard behavior.
> 
>     Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?
> 
>     Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this newsgroup?
> 
>     [snip (51 lines)]
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     Loris
> 
>     -- 
>     This signature is currently under constuction.
> 

Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
  - Louis D. Brandeis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269346 — Re: OT: Top Posting

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

You really must think of yourself as being the epitome of human creation. I
don't see any use in continuing this nonsense. If you don't have anything
relevant to say, this case is closed for me.

Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 16:55 Uhr schrieb gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net
>:

> On 5/14/24 10:09, Richard wrote:
> > Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's
> > not standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's
> > called a setting.
> >
> No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor
> to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your
> choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent
> that can. There are dozens of them.
>
> > Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb Loris Bennett
> > <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de <mailto:loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de>>:
> >
> >     Hi Richard,
> >
> >     Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com <mailto:rrosner5@gmail.com>> writes:
> >
> >      > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being
> replied
> >      > to) is literally industry standard behavior.
> >
> >     Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?
> >
> >     Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this
> newsgroup?
> >
> >     [snip (51 lines)]
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >
> >     Loris
> >
> >     --
> >     This signature is currently under constuction.
> >
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
> --
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>   soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
> If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
>   - Louis D. Brandeis
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269359 — Re: OT: Top Posting

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 2:40 PM Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> wrote:

> You really must think of yourself as being the epitome of human creation.
> I don't see any use in continuing this nonsense. If you don't have anything
> relevant to say, this case is closed for me.
>

Who are you talking about? There are two people in the reply below.

Jeff


> Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 16:55 Uhr schrieb gene heskett <
> gheskett@shentel.net>:
>
>> On 5/14/24 10:09, Richard wrote:
>> > Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's
>> > not standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's
>> > called a setting.
>> >
>> No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor
>> to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your
>> choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent
>> that can. There are dozens of them.
>>
>> > Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb Loris Bennett
>> > <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de <mailto:loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de>>:
>> >
>> >     Hi Richard,
>> >
>> >     Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com <mailto:rrosner5@gmail.com>> writes:
>> >
>> >      > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being
>> replied
>> >      > to) is literally industry standard behavior.
>> >
>> >     Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?
>> >
>> >     Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this
>> newsgroup?
>> >
>> >     [snip (51 lines)]
>> >
>> >     Cheers,
>> >
>> >     Loris
>>
>> Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269365 — Re: OT: Top Posting

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:05 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 2:40 PM Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You really must think of yourself as being the epitome of human creation.
>> I don't see any use in continuing this nonsense. If you don't have anything
>> relevant to say, this case is closed for me.
>>
>
> Who are you talking about? There are two people in the reply below.
>

Gene IS the epitome of human creation.



>
>> Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 16:55 Uhr schrieb gene heskett <
>> gheskett@shentel.net>:
>>
>>> On 5/14/24 10:09, Richard wrote:
>>> > Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean
>>> it's
>>> > not standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's
>>> > called a setting.
>>> >
>>> No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor
>>> to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your
>>> choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent
>>> that can. There are dozens of them.
>>>
>>> > Am Di., 14. Mai 2024 um 15:57 Uhr schrieb Loris Bennett
>>> > <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de <mailto:loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de>>:
>>> >
>>> >     Hi Richard,
>>> >
>>> >     Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com <mailto:rrosner5@gmail.com>> writes:
>>> >
>>> >      > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being
>>> replied
>>> >      > to) is literally industry standard behavior.
>>> >
>>> >     Can you provide a link to the standard you are referring to?
>>> >
>>> >     Assuming such a standard exists, how would it apply to this
>>> newsgroup?
>>> >
>>> >     [snip (51 lines)]
>>> >
>>> >     Cheers,
>>> >
>>> >     Loris
>>>
>>> Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET.
>>>
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269351 — Re: OT: Top Posting

how many times has this top post crap been dug up
don't y'all have any thing better to do
i know
how about some real debian issues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web